The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-25
COURT OF GENERAL SEssIoSs-pAaT 2.
Another Protest from Mr.. Howe-Judge
Bedford's Extended Petit Jury-The
Greenthal Case.

Bedford's Extended Petit Jury-Thc
Grecnthal Case.
Before Judge Sutherland.
The first case on the calendar in this Court yes.
terday was that Of Abraham Greenthal indicted
for grand larceny. The prisoner having been
called to the bar,
Mr. Howe, as his counsel, said he had most i'm
portant motion to make to the Court. His client
was one of the fifty or sixty cases that were tried
during the extended term OF Judge Bedford's
grand, patient, elastic, accommodating petit Jury;
that having been drawn in the panel of November,
1871, was continued by Judge Bedford through De.
cember, in spite Of his earnest solicitations and
protestatons at the time. Greenthal had, how
ever, been tried found guilty and sentenced to
five years in the State Prison. or that term he had
undergone nearly years Imprisonment, when
the General Term reversed the judgment on
the ground that Judge Bed0rds action had
been Irregular. new Indictment had however,
been returned against Greenthal, and he had
pleaded not guilty He now asked leave to with
draw that plea and nterpose in its stead plea
that, having been already been put in jeopardy OF
his liberty for this offence, he could not De sub.
jected TO the same ordeal over again.
District Attorney Rollins demurred, and said that
the motion seemed to him very singular IN Its char
acter. Counsel had gone to the General Term and
argued that the proceedings were absolutely void
and upon that plea mad secured reversal Of the
Judgment. Now, however, that q new trial was
ordered, they came into Court and pleaded that an
absolutely VOID proceeding had put them in jeo
pardy.
Mr.. Howe replied that the grounds he had argued
before the General Term were OF 10 importance
now He might have argued that Judge Bedford
had no jurisdiction. II would not necessarily Io
low That sucn. WAS the fact The question was
that they were in all respects regular, except so
far as regarded the jury, and therefore the pris-
oner had In TACT been put in jeopardy.
An Interesting Municipal Casc-One of
tho Alleged dummy Laborcrs Ar
raigned for Obtaining Money Under
False Pretences.
The rest of the day was absorbed in the trial of
very interesting and important case, which will
be watched with the closest attention by many
among the employees OF the city. Patrick Carroll
was arraigned for obtaining meney under false
pretences from the Mayor and Common Council of
the city OF New York. There was at once hush
in the court, which was unusually crowded, and
even the selection OF tile jurors seemed to DE for
once an important ceremony.
Assistant District Attorney Rollins, in opening
the case, said that it was some what different from
any others yet tried during the present term The
first witness he would place upon the stand would
be Paymaster Falls, whose duty it was to pay the
laborers upon the various public works OF the city,
In q certain payroll OF the engineers, assistants
and laborers employed upon the "blg pipe" WORK,
between Ninety-third and 18th streets, there ap-
peared the name OF Patrick Burns, OF 81 orchard
street, and 1t would be shown that the
defendant had falsely stated that that
was his name and address, and that he had at
tempted to obtain by that representation the
amount OF S27, which was apparently due TO that
name and number on the payroll The prisoner
had even sworn that that was his name and adj
dress There was real Patrick Burns, but he had
been sick Tor some months and when he had re-
sumed work the false Patrick Burns had continued
TO irauduently draw pay, ana nad indeed uone
so for long period. Ii was clear, therefore, tnat
though the amount charged to have been tue op-
ject OF fraudulent attempt by the prisoner was
comparatively small, yet the case was very I'm, I'm,
portant one especially as ii was suspected that
there were great many other cases OF tlle SAINT
character, involving systematic fraud upon the
city upon an enormous SCALE . ,
ected to the trial OF the prisoner, on the ground
tnat there was no such offence a. an attempt TO OBJ
tam money under false pretences. THIS was, how
ever overrued by the Court.
The first witness was MI Moor Fails the Pay
master OF the Finance Department. He described
m,nutey the routine by means OF which the pay
rolls are made up and verified, and then stated
that his suspicious having been aroused about the
months under the name of Patrick Burns, he re-
uuired him to swear to his name and residence,
which he did, as 1t was clear, however, that both
name and address were false, he had him shortly
afterwards arrested
george w. Dresser, the. superintendent OF the
'big pipen works, upon when the prisoner pro-
fessed to be employed, testified as TO the manner
in which the pay roll was made UP and verified he
did not think IL probable that a man could draw
pay unless he did the work man might work un-
der q raise name, but the superintendent and lore
men were guided by the numbers, not the names
OF the men: 1t was possible that IL there werea
pay without doing the work: he could not femen.
Der having seen the prisoner at work; lie thought
he had seen him. but was not sure.
Patrick Burns, the Simon-purc bearer OF .he
big pipe works, and had lived at 81 Orchard street
during part OF 1871. In september ol that year,