The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1873-12-25
Trial Of Ex.AIaYor Han.

NEW YoEK. Dec. 24.-The counsel
for the defense in the trial of ex-Mayol
Hall, declined to-day to put in evidence
and commenced TO sum up, saying they
would ask the court to direct the jury e
acquit the defendant. At the conclnsion
OF Mr.. Stoughton's argument for the de-
tense, MIR. Tremalne commenced for the
prosecution, and In the course Of his
argument called the attention Of the jury
TO the fact that the defendant himself,
when the District Attorney procured the
conviction Of Judge Barnard for an act
similar to the one which Is now on trial,
and then argued that the word corruptly
was o mere surplusage !; that the word
wiliully meant Intentionally, and what.
ever his good faith was when he intended
to do the forbidden act, he was doing
1t wilfully at that time: In that
position the court sns tanned him. Ire.
maine spoke for three hours, and con-
cluded by saying that il the offense was a
mere technical one, the Jury should so
find, and trust the court 10 administer q
mere technical penalty. He did not ask
the jury to find that any money went
into the defendants pocket, and rejoiced
TO say there were no proofs that It did.
II they found general verdict OF guilty,
the defendant could be punished for only
one oftense, or they could find him guilty
on all or any OF the counts or vouchers.
Judge Daniels commenced his charge
at 4S0. He said the defendant was sub.
stantially charged with wilful neglect Of
duty, and being a lawyer and q man OF
culture and ability, should be held 10 strict
performance Of the duty imposed upon
him by law. II public officer wiliully
neglects 10 perform the dnty imposed
upon him by law he Is guilty Of q misde.
meanor. The duty imposed upon the
Board Of Audit was oi personal and ju.
dicial character which required investiga.
tion. They had no right to delegate that
duty to any one else. 1t was beyond
doubt personal duty required Of the
Of the Board. Did the defend
ant decline 10 perform that duty? II he
did so designedly and purposely he COM
mitted q misdemeanor, for ii Is not neces.
ssry that there should be any designs to
defraud, and II is enough If party designs
to perform an act which creates crime.
An inspection Of many Of the bills pre-
sented would have revealed frauds OF a
gross character. The Judge, instanced
one bill from which was omitted
the creditors name. The public had q
right TO expect an examination Of all
these bills. He instructed the jury that
The defence made of duties being too ardu.
ous would not stand as an excuse, for no
officer can undertake duty and neglect
Il II the jury was satisfied that the de-
lendant had committed on offence, no
matter how painful II might be to defend.
ants friends, 1t was their duty 10 pro-
nounce him guilty, and unless they had
an abiding conviction Of his guilt they
mnst find him not guilty. he instructed
them 10 contine themselves to the indiCt.
ment charging willul and intentional
DmittiDg TO performing his duty. Judge
Daniels also instructed the jury that there
was no evidence Of conspiracy between
Hall and his friends, and nothing con-
nected him with the fraudulent bills.
The Jury retired at o'clock. At s
o'clock the jury returned and were in
structed In response to queries
from tho foreman. that the simple
act Of neglect Of duty II wiltul
would warrant verdict 0i guilty, and
that the jury were themselves the judges
whether the act was or was not wiliul.
The Judge told them that II they did not
find q verdict within IN hour or so they
would be locked up for the night. The
jury then retired again. At 1880 they
entered the court room and In answer to
the usual query Of the Judge, replied
that they had found a verdict Of not guilty.
At this announcement the audience broke
INTO thunders Of applause, which could
not be objected 10, and after the lapse Of
about 10 minutes court was adjourned
until Monday morning.