New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-18

enough for the into Court ana relate
inc history Of political campaign In whom blows were
gwen and money spent they must 10 ana ay their
h.snus upon statute authorizing his CONVICTION Tue
6le 70 two poInts~arst nonfrasance in ONCE second,
ined 10 ofce. Under the first head that statute on
there is roy Special al provision imposing 4
r nne OF $50 for the neslect OF soditp 9hs
mayor the Controller and present President OF the
sn OF Supervisors" and there Is special seenos D.,
nisde meanors. and providing penalty OF $500 hne as
neglect Of meeting TO audit the Law does not require
hve or six auditors Of the United States Treasury
anu tney don't act as Board Wnen me law sala tne
snail be audited by present President OF the Board
ano.ner head Of department, the Mayor and another
tDs Controller was not fair inference that they were
bound 10 hold meetings. Another point was that the
aw could not impose on one man IA duty that three
| m,,,,nbers snail meet as board .
Mr.. Tremain here interrupted. He understood the
geneman was intending 10 argue that the law was re-
Pe,,.ueu ana he was going into other questions.
Mr.. Graham said Mr. Tremain ought TO DO as Impair
@ as Tue Judge and extend the same privileges To the
deieuse Mr. Phelps extended To Mr.. Trenan on lhe
Stokes trial. and not act as though civil strife.
mr. Bartlett then argued that the law under which the
defendant is charged with nsdemeanor repealed, be
cause t has been enacted that gross fraud in office is
puishable not with line before but fne and lnprs-
onment, making II a felony, moss misdemeanor reads
tue act of 1883; his Honor has held that the acts
charged against the defendant II proved would constl-
tute gross fraud In office. The Indictment Tor INSIDE
! meanor therefore c0nld not stand.
Judge DAVIS said the points raised were not without
embarrassment He was inclined 10 think the Revised
STATUES have provided punishment for neglect Of duty
Dy member Of the Board or Supervisors, In the Tor
feure Of $3.50 for each such neglect But the fine could
not be recovered from defendant as member OF the
Board OF Supervisors There new office created,
no doubt but the duties were imposed on him AS
member Of the ard but IA then President OF the
BOard new duties we're imposed on the Supervisors,
but t1er former power taken away and conferred
the defendant ana wo Others to the point that
fraud, which were misdemeanors at common law were
made feones IN STATE punishable by State Prison Tex
cept mockaucton frauls) tho Indictment does not
chrge that he obtained goods or ehattes by iiu nut
that he wckedly misbehaved in office, and that brings
4 IL lutO catalogue not OF IeOHlts Dul Oh
| meanOVs.
| The defense waived any formal opening. Copeland,
assistant bOOkkeeper at the Controllers Office IN 1870,
was then called He described the desk az which the
clerks sat as running down the OF the room. At
the back Of taat desk small ordinary one, with
| pgeon-hoes dt the top, where vouchers were placed
peOnhocs under long desk. At the otner side Of
the room still another desk where the vouchers Tor
the past year were pgeonloled. These pigeonhOes in
/ tAe large desk open.
Judge DAVIS sed what was the meaning OF that evil
dcnce. Mr. Root said to prove there such
vouchers in the pge9n;holes when he LETT in IsIl az
those charged in the indictment ana that Mr. tweed
\ mover signed certificates 10 any such vouchers
The witness testified that 1t was his duty To number
the vouchers from Record Of Vouchers book; the
entries on the Record book taken from the Audit
| book where Mr.. Lynes made entries from warrants.
Mr. Lynes made tho warrants from claims; sometimes
witness Jaw him make QUE a warrant aud take it INTO
| Mr. WatsOu's room this when GaIyev and Keysor
were present, looking witness heard hey ser testy
that his warrants forged he must have known ~,
for lbs preso when they were made out keyser
Was there looking the book aud must have seen the
figure for which hrs warrant was made out; witness
had been asked vouchers by InCersO, Carney. and
watson, aud he took tnem from the pigeon-hoes they
| were not always returned aud when returned they
were not In the Gsame condition they generally
loose, ana the Controllers certificate aud the certificate
Of audlt sometimes lost sometimes some the pages
~ Garyey's bills would be gone he had seen er8sures
on the certificate Of audit when the vouchers back.
Cro-s-exauncd bv Mr. Pecklatn: He did not see oil
the vouchers office; 1t after the claims
had been pad that parties asked vouchers ana took
them away he ala not make any remark when the GER
tiicae wanting, but put up the voucher; witness
called for the prosecution the first trial and then
for the deense u was while on tho stand Tor tue de
tense that first mentioned that fcacs
ng; all the looked at in tue Office had
| tihcLtes Of audit igned by Mr. Twee1.
g.. when you made an Hfi0aVit TO me did you look
over the schedule If 100 county liabilities and tell me
attached 20 every OF themf A. 1 did not, sir-Iet
| COUNCIL here read witness's AFFIDAVIT that all the
vouchers for county liabilities accounts certified
Mons s1 H.. nrsIn1cn every lime 1s Lines drew m a
warrant there "A corresponding voucher The war
rant made from the voucher, and tho entry III the
| record book from the warrant
q. Dd you swear to this other printed athdaVitt
Mr.. Grsnlm-I object to asking aim question from a
! printed copy.
don' object before the question To wi,nsss-Did you
| tifcate was attached 10 eaehi A. No.
Mr.. Pccknam then read the affidavit winch stated that
eced TO the reading Of long paper abont the frauds
ana the Election was oyerruled.
Mr.. GRAHAM We'll your Honor, please TO grant II AS
| the benefit Of an exception
| The Court-Ceftinly; hSlf dozen II you like.
in that because told you had all the warrants,
| but not the vouchers.
A. s. smith,. who bookleper in the Broadway
Bauk 1870 called the defense and handed In "a
list OF WoOdwards deposits from May $780, to sept l.
Mr. Lyues recalled by the prosecution contradctcd u
Copeland that he times made entries
GU tue record book from warrants without vouchers
attached. Mr.. Graham then asked NJ. smith whether
he had not Garyey In court Judge DAVIS Inquired
what thatfor.
Mr.. Grahau-Garvey dreaded That ten hours cross
examination much did, twas near killing
Wheeler H. Peckl1m, OF the prosecuting counsel.
ued he drew up Copcland's aht1yit ana heard
his testimony; heard such statement when
drawing IL up that the depOnont had not seen all the
vouchers.
Mr. Peckham 20 Mr.. Graham)-YOu spoke Of putting
on Mayor Halls message; VIII yOu do 80 !
Mr.. Grdhagn-YOu have Hgnt TO appeal to me Ia
that wav
Mr. TremaiI-If you call him a witness, will have
no objection.
Mr. Graham II Is unhandsOme Of you 20 get mp In
that way. He Is tue would call A. to CIV
lug his messIg in evidence, Oh reflection that would
be insult Ia the Court.
Ths case closed on both Sides and the Court adjourned