Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-12-25
A. OAKEY HALL.
Conclusion of the Trial.


N
New YORK, Dec. 24-The counsel for
the defence in the trial of ex-Mayor Hall
declined to put in evidence, and commenced
to sum up, saying they would ask the court
to direct the jury to aequit the defendant.
Tremaine's Argument.
At the conclusion Of Mr.. Stoughton's ar
sument for the defense Mr.. Tremaine COM
menced for the prosecution, and in the
course of his argument called the attention
of the jury to the fact that the defendant
himself, when district attorney, procured
the conviction of Judge Bogart for an act
similar TO that for which he was now on
trial. He argued that the word ''co1uptly'
was mere surplusage, that the word "will-
fully" meant Intentionally, and with what
ever his good faith, ii he intended to do
the forbidden act, it was doing
il willfully. In that portion the court sus-
tained him. Tremaine spoke three hours
and concluded by saying if the otiense was
a mere technical one, the jury should so
find, and trust the court to administer
mere technical penalty. He did not ask
the jury to find that any money went into
the defendent's pocket, and he rejolced to
say there was no proof whatever that it did.
If they found general verdict of guilty,
| one offense, or they could find him guilty
on all or any of the counts or vouchers.
The Judges Charge 90 she Jury.
Judge DaEiels commenced his charge at
1890. He said defendant was substan-
italy charged with willful neglect of duty,
and being a lawyer, and a man of culture
and ability, should be held to a strict per-
! formance of the duty imposed on him by
law. If public officer willfully neglects
to perform the duty imposed on him by
law, he is guilty Of misdemeanOr. The
duty imposed ON the Board of Audit was of
personal and judicial character which re-
| quired investigation. They had no
right to delegate that duty to any
one else. Beyond a doubt a 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
a msdemeanor, for it is not necessary that
there should be any designs to defraud. 1t
is enough if party designs to perform an
| act which creates crime. An inspection of
many of the bills presented would have
revealed frauds of gross character, the
| Judge instancng one bill from which was
omitted the creditors name. The public
had a right to expect the examination of
| all these bills. lie instructed 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 wilfully neglect it. If the jury is salts
| isfied that defendant committed the offence,
no matter how painful it might be to the
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 instructed
| them to coniine themselves to the indict-
ment charging the defendant with wilfully
| and Intentionally emitting to perform the
! duties prescribed by law. Judge Daniels
/ also instructed the jury that there was no
evidence of conspiracy between Hall and
his associates, and nothing connected him
with fraudulent bills.
The jury retired at six o'clock. vt
eight O'Clock the jury returned and were in
Structed, in answer to queries from The
foreman, that a simple act Of neglect Of duty,
| if willful would warrant verdict Of guilty,
and that the Jury were themselves judges
| whether the act was or was not willtul.
| The Judge told them if they did not find
verdict within an hour or SO, they would
be locked up for the night. The jury Ie-
| tired again. At 10:}0 o'clock the jury en-
tered the court room, and in answer to the
| usual inquiry OF the Judge, replied they
had found a verdict of not guilty. At this
| announcement the audience broke into
| thlmders of applause, which. the court did
not object to, After a,lapse ofabOut ten min
utes the court was adjourned until Monday
morning.