Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1873-12-26
Ex-Mayor kali Not Gu1lty

Among the Associated Press dis
patches Of Thursday morning, is the
following relative to the trial Of ex-
Mayor Hall, Of New York:
New York, Dec. p.
The counsel for the defense in the
trial of ex-Mayor Hall, declined to-
day to put in evidence, and com
menced to sum up by saying they
would ask the court to instruct the
jury to acqut the defendant.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Slough
tons argument for the defence, Mr..
Tremaine commenced for the pros
ecution, and in the course Of his ar
gument, he called the attention of
the jury to the fact that the de-
PENDANT himself, when District At
torncy, procured the conviction of
Judge Dagart, for an act similar to
that for which he is now on trial,
and then argued that the word COR
ruptly was mere surplassage OF
that word williully-meant inten-
tionally, and that whatever his good
faith may be, if he intended to do
the forbidden act, it was doing it
wilfully. In that position the court
sustained him. Mr.. Tremaine spoke
for three hours, and concluded by
saying, if the offence was a mere
technical one the jury should so
find, and trust the court to admin
lister mere technical penalty.
He did not ask the jury to find
that any money went into defen-
dant's pocket. He ventured to say
there was no proof whatever that it
did. If they found the general vcr-
dict of guilty, defendant could only
be punished for one otfence;. or they
could only find him guilty on all or
any of the counts Or vouchers. Then
Judge Daniels commenced his
charge at 1870; he said defendant
was substantially charged with will
full neglect Of duty, and being a law
yer and man of culture and abili-
ty, he should be held to strict
performance of duty imposed upon
him by law, he is guilty of u misde-
meanor. The duty imposed upon
the Board of Auditors was of per-
sonal and judicial character, which
required investis alton. They had
no right to delegate that duty to
any one else. 1t was beyond doubt
that personal duty was required
Of the members of the Board. Did
the defendant decline to perform
that duty? If he did so designedly
and purposely, he committed mis-
deneanor, for it is not necessary
that there should be any design to
defraud; it is enough if the party
designs to perform the act which
creates crime. An inspection of
the many bills presented would have
revealed frauds of gross charac-
ter, the Judge instancing one bill
from which was omitted the credit
or's name, and saying the public
had right to expect the cxamina-
ton Of all these bills. He instruc-
ted the jury that the defense made,
Of the duties being too arduous,
would not stand as an excuse, for no
officer can undertake a duty and
wilfullv neglect it; if the jury were
satisfied that defendant committed
the offence, no matter how painful
it might be to defendants friends,
it was their duty to pronounce him
guilty, and unless they had an
abiding conviction of his guilt they
must find him not guilty. He in
structed them to confine themselves
to the Indictment charging the de-
PENDANT with wilfnlly and intention
ally emitting to perform duties re-
CURED by law. Judge Daniels also
instructed the jury that there was
no evidence Of conspiracy between
Hall and his associates, and moth
ing connected him with the fraudu-
lent bills. The jury retired at 6
o'clock, and at Z O'Clock the jury re-
turned and were Instructed in an
swer to queries from the foreman
that the simple act was a neglect of
duty, if wilfill, would warrant YER
dict of guilty, and that the jury
were themselves the judges, wheth-
er the act was or was not wilfnl.
The jury retired again.
At 1890 o'clock, the jury entered
the court room, and in answer to
usual inquiry, the jury replied that J