The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-12-25
The Hall Case
NEW YoRK, Dec. 2.

/ Ut ElN'll WIS ullililbll Ut fNfltNu.
LArEr. The trial Of Hall was resumed
at 9:30. The court room was denscly
crowded and the prisoner had II formidable
array of counsel present No testimony
for the defense was put in, and Mr.. Slough.
ton began summing up for the prisoner
Mr. StOugh,on said that they did not put
in rebuttal testimony. because no evidence
had been adduced showing that he was
knowing to the frauds committed He
claimed that Halls previous fifteen years
Of honest pnhlc life should shield him
from suspicion Of being a party to them,
AMI that 50 soon rs the frauds were dis
covered he (llal) took steps to have them
fericlrd out. Mr. Sloushon incidentally
observed that he did not suppose the prose
cutinn would insist. rs the indictment
chugc,. that he (llall} coiruptly certified
TO bills which he knew to he fraudulent.
Mr.. Trcmaiu rcjoiucd I'VE insist upon
everything. Mr.. Stoughton observed
that the case is now narrowed down to a
question whether Mr. Hall was technically
guilty Of neglect, aul FOR this he is in
dicted and charged with ffty-hyc olfcnscs.
on each of which he could be sentenced to
a years imprisonment and fine Of $3.50,
the punishment of lifetime: but do be-
lievc that yon have come to the conclusion
that he has not been guilty of any fault
Whatever.
Mr.. Trcmlin resumed his argument point
ing out that thief who stole twenty dol
lars was liable for felony. while the man
who, by his neglect, permitted this city TO
be plundered of millions could only be
punished under an old law for INSIDE
mcanor, because to the credit of our own
ancestors and of English people. the pos
sibiliiy OF such a crime was not anticipated.
To no officer was such high authority given
as to the mayo. He was the elect Of the pco-
pie. To him legislature trusted these i'm
porlant duties as Il representative Of the
whole people Of the city. elected by an
overwhelming majority. The claim that
the resolution was merely to get together
bills already audited by the board of SUI
pervisors, he stigmatizcd as entirely UNI
reasonable. Once audited by the board Of
supervisors they needed no further audit.
Again they We're to be sought in the
committee rooms who never hear of an all-
dited bill travelling back to committee
rooms, nor was any certificate of audit re-
CURED The fiat of W. VI. Tweed was to
1.n ttsrl, 4 I,.,1
ing whatever He claimed that in light of
subsequent acts this resolution was proof
OF an intent TO accept Twced's signature
and that oi his hcnchman in place Of doing
his duty. Mr. Tremain spoke for two hours.
and in conclusion said If the offence was
mere technical one the jury should find it
so and trust the court to administer mere
technical penalty he did not ask the Jury
to find that any money went into defcn-
dents pocket, and he rel iced to say there
was no proof whatever that it did. The
waters of reform have have commenced to
low, and it was for the jury to determine
whether the waters Of Justice shall hc
arrested in their flow. If they found
general verdict of guilty. the defendant
could only be punished for one offence. or
they conld find him guilty on all or any
counts lie excluded all thought that any
relation existed between defendant and any
Juror ANA except those disclosed ON the in
'es''gau"n ana lett the case in their hands
Judge Daniels then charged the jury.
II
lie explained the duties of members of the
BOARD OF Aunt ana requirements made Of
them ny law lhcy should have in
vestIgatrd all claims before auditing
them TO prevent fraud, and the question
for the jury TO decide upon, was whether
the defendant had discharged his duty
The defendant being a lawyer and a man
oi culture he should he held 10 strict
performance of the duty imposed upon him
If public officer wlfully neglecls his
duty, he is guilty Of mis,lcmeanor. The !
duty required was personal and could not
be delegated To others. IN inspection of /
many OF the bills presented would have re /
vealed frauds of gross charlctcr-thc /
judge instancing one bill from which was |
omitted the creditors name. The public |
had right TO expect an examination of all |
these bills. He instructed the jury that
the defense made of the duties being too
ardnous would not stand as an excuse, for
no officer can undertake duty and wilfully |