The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-16

A number Of other objections were made to other
overruled ana exceptions noted. The papers were
then read to the jury by Mr.. Peckham. The bill
WORK r Of inherent Kinds performed about the city
Hall. The vouchers produced were signed by the
Mayor, the Comptroller. by the defendant and by
the bank paid the money. The filing In OF the GER
tifcate Of audit was In the handwriting of the
TO Defendants Counsel-There is nothing on the
bill in Mr. Tweed's handwriting except his name.
The words chairman OF Committee" were written
under Tweeds signature by Woodward.
Voucher mo. 2" was then handed to Witness
and the same set of questions were put and Obec-
lions made as to Voucher No. l. This was bill Of
Keyser Co. for $27 1857 3d. the certificate OF audit,
signed by the three members Of the Board OF Audit,
and the Comptroller's warrant and County Clerks
certificate. Objection was made as before against
accumulation OF Offences
The next they were all Keyser's), for $1e,o24 81,
The last Bill was specially objected to on account
OF apparent alterations with pen on the face OF
the bull, which the witness could not tell anything
about.
The witness was next handed bill and certih-
cate OF audit the bill being dated July /, 1870 and
Mr.. Field raised the objection that it was mad
alleged to have been executed By him after he had
here trial for acts alleged to have been done by
him in his official capacity as President Of the
OF July s. when in fact the defendant had
CEASED TO BE AN OFFICER
several DcIOrc Ny VlTJue OF an act or the Leg
isature, which legslated the Board OF Supervisors
out OF ONCE and provided for the creation OF
another body empowered to exercise the functions
formerly exercised by this Board He held that such
evidence was wholly tnadmissibe and understood
the Court 20 have ruled to that effect another
objection taken on Wednesday.
the Court explained that In the ruling referred
to IL held that when the defendant ceased to be
President OF the Board OF Supervisors he ceased to
be an officer de jttre, but that the prosecution
might show that he was still an olcer deJdcfO, and
an officer de Jdcto, assuming TO exercise his func-
tons, is deemed liable for misfeasance, II conf
mitted by him while so acting.
AT this point the Court read the ruling In ques-
ton from the transcription Of the stenographer's
notes (of the accuracy Of which transcription some
doubts were expressed by the judge to the erect
that unless the defendant were an officer de Jtue
ne could not be compelled to discharge the func-
tions OF the O1ice II would be another question,
however, where an officer no longer under the OBJ
legation or his Jurdt takes upon himself the dis
charge OF o duty and in
THE EXERCISE OF THAT FUNCTION
violates statute. In the first case the remedy
against him would be for neglect to fulfil duty,
and1n the other for an improper execution Of an
assumed duty.
Mr.. Field stated that he had not 80 understood
the Court but he would, however, claim the right
to show that there was no such thing In this case
as an olcer de fdcO even, for the ONCE had ceased
to exist from the first OF July, and he had dis
charged from 1t. He would therefore ask the Court
to allow q discussion Of this question
The Judge suggested that counsel discuss first
whether the ONCE ceased 70 exist or whether the