The New York herald., 1874-07-10
BROOKLYN COURTS
sapreme Ceurt-Extraerdinary Term
The Tax Once Fraud Case Terminated
The Judges Charge.


sapreshe Ceurt-Extrserdinary Term
The Tax Once Fraud Case Tsrminated-
The Judges Charge.
Before Judge Daniels and Associate Justices voor.
hies and Johnson.
About ten O'Clock yesterday forenoon the trial
OF Captain Adolphus w. II. Gill; ex-Assistant Col
lector OF Taxes and Assessments, OF the city Of
Brookiyn. who was indicted for embezzement OF
the public money, was resumed before the extra
ordinary term OF the Court OF Oyer and Terminer,
Judge Daniels and Associate Justices presiding
The attendance was not large by any means
slough II might have been expected that case
involving the morality OF public oicial fe at this
particular epoch OF regeneration and reform,
would have had the effect OF fliing the spacious
han ofjus,ce to replction Among those present
were prominent Coroner ]. b. Jones, Captains Nc.
Keller and Meeks, ex-Collector briggs, l. Badeau,
Jr., son OF the indicted Collector; ex. Alderman
BoggA General Jordan the faithful friend or the
defendanp, ex-Judge Troy Colonel John r. Pek
lows Theodore nlton, Frank Madison and others.
OF course there was q goodly sprinkling OF the
members OF the local Bar bent upon enjoying the
intellectual treat In store In the summing up for
the defence and prosecution. General Tracy and
p Ready appeared for the defendant, ana ]. Van
COtt, j. Moore and Levi Faron for the people. The
District Attorney, Mr.. winslow, was also present
OF his counsel, and most intently watched the
progress OF the case upon which depended his
futire veal or woe He was frequently approached
by acquaint@nces, who shook him warmly by the
hand. and ne returned the grasp with equal
warmth.
on the opening Of the case John Brady, clerk
In the Tax ONCE, was called by the prosecution iOr
rebuttal testimony He did not remember the bill
OF Mrs. Bachias being handed 10 him on the 18th OF
September ls, nor Qua ne take or @ see an any other
day; all the entries on the ticker OF that date
were in the handwriting OF witness, Fiangan and
keenan,; did not see any money taken from the
drawer by Mr. GIL; there were three clerks In the
John p. keenan, was clerk in the Tax once in
1872. but did not remember having seen the bill ip
question. At this point both sides rested, and
Csaeral Tracy renewed the motion TO acguit on
other proof than that the offence was committed by
one OF several persons. and not having proved
which one, there could be no conviction.
The motion was overruled by Juogc Daniels, and
the counsel proceeded to sum up Tor the defence,
hfteen minutes TO one ne dwelt upon the fact
that the proof to convict his client must be such
S ts al oTs There doubt %a As ss
contended strong case Of probability that some
one OF the twelve people employed from time to
was no particle OF evidence that Gill, or any par
ticular person, took that money. Tne taxpayer
gIs Su aaSs or sa Se Of e e There Was
nothing to show that Gil received the money.
Gin, subordinate for twenty years, knew knew how
handled from &C. ooo, coo to $40 o0o 900 year, and
1t was not probable that he limited his aostrac:
character oi the Captain, and eioqucntiy appealed
to the jury to acquit the prisoner.
MIR. Van Cott summed up for the prosecution,
! commencing alter the recess at ten minutes be-
fore one O'Clock The counsel reviewed the testi-
/ mony in q most exhaustive manner ana leaning
| heavily upon the prisoner. He argued that the
testimony Gil went to show that Captain GIL had
widow Bacias, sis2 65, and concluded by urging
upon the jury the necessity ol maintaining the in
stltutons Of the state anu nation by graphing
Judge Daniels then proceeded to deliver the
charge to the jury upon the law under which the
IN brief reviewed the testimony, which showed
that the amount charged TO have been embezzed
part OF the defence It had been claimed that 1t was
not clear that the defendant took this money. 1t
access to this money drawer from which the money
was taken. The question Will arise whether per-
so asen tsis p.ese aHe OF pesn ssa aSe 70
is so Improbable that these matters are
to be taken into consideration in the
evidence. The time of day at which Mrs. Bachia'5
bill was paid was also to be taken into considera-
tlon She mad testified that IN consequence Of an
TO the Tax once she was delayed until after the
close OF business lor the day, which is at two
gave .he bill to q saort man, VINO received The
money, stamped 1t and returned II with the re-
ceipt OF Mr. Gtll should the Jury be satisfied that
or some one Of the three clerks in
the Office, then they would be limited in
their evidence. 1t was not seriously cOntrOvertod
but that It was paid into the Office and mlsappro
priated by some person. the fact that CHIPS Sig
nature attached to the bi!I Is very cogent evil
dence that be was there. Vnen lie received and
counted the money IL was his duty 10 pass 1t over
to The 'tie1!er" book clerk Il he received the
money, ana other person. then the circum-
stance is to be considered whether he detained 1t
or not. The Judge charged that II the jury
OF money and applied 1t to his own use,
let MIN have oeen never so faithful public ofhcer
heretofore, the Jury were bound to find yer.
diet Of guilty. Previous good character did not
exonerate man Tor violation OF the law and shield
bm from the punishment due for the offence.
Even couslon with others In taking this money
would in no way exOnerate the prisoner, because,
should the others have committed offence, the
pubic could proceed against them individually.
General Tracy then submitted proposition for
the Court TO charge 70 the eiect that, no matter
how conclusive the evidence may appear, even
witness may 0e mistaken, and the previous char
acter OF the accused is Of weight In considering
verdict. The Court so charged, and the jury re-
tired 20 deliberate.