New-York tribune., 1873-12-25

% The rydencs shows no has wfully neglected
Considerable has been sad as 70 Iae a uod"stana y
is one of ordinary signcaton ana sees 70 nave oeen
IsS wSa s Is publicly regarded and when these terms
are usods the enactment OF the sw' 20 De pre-
satinr different purpose the part Of The Lesisla
tnre that the term IL usod IN the sense dt ~ uuresscs
@ @ ~ tbe drm and to that ndydna in the in
which 1t is popularity nnderstoode -, % t"" %
IA il Is used in the and as ordinarily used between
individuals aud was at he tng ts IN th Cos en- m
Errors which has been referred 10 DJ eouSe curing the
u- and whether The dui i a or easy in its nature
TsaIt' sentenen was substantially the duty imposed
upou defendant by the statute o, lS'o ana he was
The statute itself says these persons we're TO aot cpn
Jointly Ths language o. Inc saSo'e , ~ tns' ae sm
receive IT, upon the certificate of tue officer named
therein Ths oiHt act Sd e In
authority or duty B connded by law 70 thee or more
" uc sroons or o;er upon meeting OF all the per-
officers inrsted, unoss special provision Is
s MADE in r1, case but on the other a nd the plain
Import of the provision made III s aot OF 1917 Is that
they shall meet together and act Jointly nithe discharge
of the duty imposed upon them Taking that statute.
together with preceding one, IL leaves no doubt
of tccourse that tAose perSons were required
Ihis was m Substance the duty imposed upon these
persons. they required 20 perform IT for the
purpose Of preventing the payment Of spurious unjust
accounts The importance OF ths Is manifest from the
manner IN which these accounts were presented, IN
which they afterwards passed ana allowed and
pald of the Treasury because the evidence shows
beyond controversy that 10 very great extent
the accounts we're false, hclous ana iIuuleut anu III
consequence Of this very large amount OF money hPs
been aDstracted rom the pubic treasury, whch shond
not have been appropriated to any such purpose Tue
question arises, this defendant having authority con
feTTed him member OF this Board whether he
wliuly neglected TO perform me duty he was Required
II il camed on the par, oil the prosecution that the evi
dence is OF such character as reasonably and larry TO
was wlul neglect and omission on ms part. Ihat,
gentlemen. Is probably the more important point IN THIS
case, because really there can be no substantial dier-
ence of opinion 10 the character Of the duty the de-
endaDt req lired 10 pcrorul the language OF the
statute Is plan Tue defendant Is an eApefeaeea law
ana ca pao under those circumstances where the
LANGUAGE OF the statute is pa "a a' ~ inns @ ese' ~ 'nfe th
discharge of the duty which the statute really and
! fairly s0is forth.
| TIE ALLEGED EEGLECf or Duly.
Did the defendant wiliuiIy refuse neglect TO audit
these accounts together with these two other
Tho first thing we encounter in reference 10 the ransac
ton, of the defendant ia the resolution which has been
| approved and made subject of comment This was
passed soon after the act OF April went into effect at
meeting held May s. 1870 1t Is claimed by the prosecu
ton from that resolution that the defendant intended to
| neglect his duty. Now to make such neglect q misde
| tended 60 neglect what the law required
dd d tina detandaUt at tis or any Subsequent time in
pursuance OF the express intention Of this resolution
wifuy neglect to perform inc duty prescriped oy the
statutei In this the duty was one OF Judicial
character and In this the defendant had no right to
renounee the personal performance OF hat duty or I'M
pose II upon other person. or npOn the Board OF S
pervisors ITSELF upon the President or Secretary for
| the statute has prescribed otherwise.
The first evidence sustaining the proposition the
part OF the prosecution that there was such wlful
neglect ia the existence Of this resolution passed by
the Board itself May g. 1870 BY this resolution these
three persons met Board under the statute, and
substantially accepted the duties Then they resolved
that the claims collected by the County Auditor and
passed through substantially, without investigation.
This however was not the crime; 1t was the intention
10 commit it.: for IL their intention certify these
accounts collected without examination then there
was the disposition and intention TO declare their duty
aud il Is for the jury whether matter OF fact
that construction TO be pnt on tine language Of the
resolution. But to find whether the crime charged on
the indictment committed 1t IL necessary TO go
further and inquire whether that purpose was carried
| out.
On this branch OF the subject Judge Daniels referred
TO the testimony OF Mr. Lynes, bookkeeper, TO the
question for your consideration. said he. whether the
evidence shows that these persons acted upon the
design embodied III their resolution IL Is claimed
that there further evidence tending TO establish this
conclusion. arising out OF the manner IN which these ac
prosecution that " these persons had met together
the act OF 1870 required these
| some OF tnem grossly fraudulent to have at
once arrested the attention Of these individuals and
| vented their pay ment by the authorities
Judge Dauios spoke of Davidsons bill OF $690. and
the % 1l q S w. ws ronr ne o S
by defense IL was claimed, the part OF the
cOn that when the claim OF Davidson came up before
the Board of Audit and the had been filled up
for ODO that the difference would have exposed al
|
yoyed In the loss OF this large OF money; and it
was claimed that inssmuch AS no such detection was
made IL evident that these persons were not exer
csug the authority conferred upon Them 10 discharge
| the duty required OF them by the act OF 1870
Judge Daniels next called attention to the 3rgeness
of the bills $500 900 being claimed for work
tho Corth0u-e in one month, 10 the circumstance OF
the signatures TO the certificates being IN dheren col
ored INKS TO the evidence the defendants signature
was not the warrants and to the fact OF the sigma
lures being xed at different dates as showing accord
Ing to the prosecution that they put at different
| places well as times thus proving that they
| did not meet 10 audit and examine; reference
likewise made TO the Mayors message 10 which he de-
lined his OF the duty imposed on him TO be that it
duties were too arduous Instructed the Jury that this
| would be The officer cannot undertake the
duty and wiiuly neglect it. though he may postpone
the duty or he can entirely surrender his position The
claims be passed upon were 100 III number and with
great length Of time would be occupied by tho examna
tion But whatever time would be taken the duty was
one else The presumption OF the law in favor OF the
defendant He is not TO be surmised guilty but the
evidence the Jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that he committed the ofense charged against
him II they were 50 satisfied no matter how painful it
might be the defendants friends that he had
yolyed himself IL their duty 10 shut their eyes
the consegaencss and pronounce h m g Say He IN
ton OF the defendants gult, thoy should mud him not
guilty
| Judge Daniels said have come 10 the conclusion
after time spent in an examination OF them, that
andns the defendant guilty So that your simple duiy
Is to determine whether the defendant has failed TO
II he has not you to find him guilty OF that onense
charged In the indictments II you are not satisfied you
| are to render a verdict OF not guilty.
Judge Daniels also instructed the jury that there
no evidence conspiracy between the defendant and
| his associates and nothing TO connect him with the
| fraudulent making up OF the bills.
At the conclusion OF the charge proper the propos
tons to charge previously handed up vaiiously
passed upon and Mr. stoughon took exception 10 that
part of the charge which set forth that the resolution Of
the Board Indicated design not to perform the duty
| Judge Daniels said to his own mind It did indicate
such design but he would leave the jury put their
| own construction upon It,