New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-06-26
CLOSE OF THE TRIAL.

VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE AND a SHORT CHARGE
THE JURY OUT THREE QUARTERS OF An HOUR
VERDICT OF GUILTY.
When the Court of Over and Terminer was
opened Yesterday morning for the resumption of the
trial offering OF the Commissioners side of the
story MAYOR Hall having opened the for the
defense the jury the previous eveRingthe room was
crowded. The deep interest was manifested
though il was popularity supposed that the tina
would any rate into next week
Grim John Kelly sat. he had the day before. behind
the counsel who represented the prosecution, Assistant
Attorney Gen. Flrchild, George c. Wlngate and Col
J. r. Fellows still farther BACK, and beside Mr.. Kelly
were grouped the faces which one may see at an I'm
pOrtan Tminany meeting aud interminged with these
we're the features OF many welEknOwn lawyers and
OF this favOnte court. Mr. Gardner and his
counsel. ex-Judge Fullerton and L. s. Commissioner
John L Davenport, sat at the end OF the table
whs * Mayor Hall represented Mr.. Charlck for the
greater part 0! te day the latter being taken SICK and
leaving the for hIs home in carriage he
not present when the verdict pronouncng him
guilty was pronounced.
The proceedings were begun by the prosecution who
called one witness Richard Croker although ex-Mayor
Hall had the evening before opened the formally
for the defense. Mr. Croker identified John Sheridan.
who gave testimony day before, Of the per-
appointed inspectors election He could not,
however state whether he served on the day OF cleo
ton although he cognZsnr of his having acted in
his official capacity on the days Of registration This
was all Of NJ. Cookers testimony, and no desire was
evnced by the counsel for the Commissioners 10 cross
examine him.
Then ex Mayor Hall called the first witness FOR the de-
tense. II Commissioner Hugh Gardner himself, and
Mr.. Davenport undertook the examination. The arsi
questions were as 10 whether he had removed Joined
IN removing John Sheridan. Nog. 5, 1873 Mr. Gard
ner reeoeeed the circumstance and admitted that he
loined in removing him. He was asked, ION
what grounds did You DO soP and this
question brought up at once sharp dispute
between ex Judge Fullerton ana Gen. Fairchd. the
latter obi citing that II matered not what the grounds
of the action WERE l. the Commissioners deliberately
old this act without complying with the legal require
Inents they guty whatever their intent or what
ever their grounds. Mr.. Fullerton maintained that
there were two constructions OF the statute, and
that the Commissioners had accepted that con-
struciion which counsel had; that under the
working Of the statute the power Of instant re-
moyal was gwen for improper conduct Oh days Of
registration revision Of registration and election, and
for improper conduct election officer" BE called
attention specially 10 this word and" II 1t only
meant for improper conduct those days i'm
pertinent and" The truth wac, it added another
for removal without notice, Improper conduct as an
election officer either during his present term in any
previous term OF Office.
Nj Hall called attention the ruling in the Bogert
case 70 sustain the rule that honest misuRdersand
ing OF the Nv could the foundation Of crime.
NJ. Fellows stated that they not here for the
pnfpOse Of trying Messrs. Gardner and Chlrck for
malciousy violating the law with a criminal intent,
bat TO prove that they violated the spirit Of the
law however nnoeenty, and regardless OF what con-
struc.ion they put upon the letter OF the law and
called attention To the distinction between acts
Of wrong in THEMSELVES and aets prohibited
by the statute citing the Hogan in
which a man. by advice OF counsel undertook
20 act as inspector another under of at
tOruey In that Court who tried him refused 10
admit that evidence aud General Term unanimously
susts ned the below. though all satisfied
o. his honest intent that the judges and District
Attorney united recommending hiss pardon, and he
was parloned promptly. For the purposes OF this trial
prosecution lght concede that the prisoner acted
with the highest motives and with the purest intent,
and IL would avail them nothing.
In reply. Mr.. Farc "a cOntended that the phrase
and for improper conduct election officer was
mere qualification Of tue previous words. giving the
pOser election dav, limiting peremptory
removals even on those OF improper
duet Ar a.. election officer The and he argued, was
one Of more emuhass The Trainer Of this act seemed
20 have been very fond OF the word using IL eddy
merely Tor the purpose Of emphasis The question OF
intent was one for court when prcnouncing sen
tenoe or for Executive eemency-not for the trial Of
the case.
a said he nad nrst thought il unfortunate that the
indictment Was narrowed down that they could not
40 into the whole case and show conspiracy But be
had since concluded that II better as WAS since II
was not 70 important VINO were Police Comml ssioners
or wbat The punishment, tAt AL future Police Coui-
moSiouers should receive solemn warniug 70 observe
The law. ,,,,-,.
ExNayor Hall retorted that Mr. Faircblds interpre-
taflou sOud prevent the Commissioners from KNOWING
mn INSPECTOR who INTOXICATED or was PICKING
voters pockets and he cited the comiueus Vi Judge
Brady himself IN the Brooks case
Judge then said ne had taken much pains TO e1
carefully law OF 1874 and ne had arrived al the
conclusion that Police Commissioner except Ior lnlpro
per conduct upon "a day o. reglstralioh' reshiou
az reslstraIiOu election, couid not remove III
specOr except after written n0fce whlch must SET out
tue removal and he thought the courts
would ultimately lsid that such hOuee Was
unless gave opportunity TO be heard In repy Ina,
disposed cf the OF intent The BOOKS mao many
Gases oil men who lad done prohibited act Win Roou
tiohtions yet nad been held liable. Ne cited several
cases where &c nad been decided taai intent or nist4ko
~as no excuse Tor doilg proeibjt ed act -
Mr. Fullerton asked Lac Coarl ne considered him as
al election officer on the third. TO with the
Court. they Proposed 10 show he third this
Sheridan threatened to stun the ballet and that
this fact communicated the Commits ON
that day.
Judge Brady said that no difference as they
had neglected 20 send the notice which this gave the
an orsunity so 90.
Mr. FaLeriOu offered then the afhdayits of Tho,nas
Mcclure ana DR. Wooster. 10 prove that the Commi,-
,opers believed In them truth and acted upon fhe m
uunicated 10 Commissioners and that before acting
ou them they required them 70 De put In writing
verified by respectable citizens.
EXMayor sad that at this stage OF the
rcodings would ask the Court 70 take the case hon
the HANDS the ard direct acquitta
cue und taat the facts offered Ia evidence tending u
SSoye misconduct were Dot brought under the