New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-03
TIE TWEED INDICTMENTS.
JUDGE BRADYs DECISION on TIE MOTION
TO QUASH.

| TIE QUESTIONS MCsr Bg RAISED by A PLEA OR
MOTION IN ARRKsr oP JUDGMENT--TwEED 70
BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT On TrLsDAY
Judge Brady filed yesterday lis opinion on
the motion 10 qllash the old indictments against william
| NJ Tweed II was conceded the argument by Mr.
Phelps and Mr. Peckha, that two indictments, the first
and third in the schedule published in THE TRiBrsE'
were superseded by the second and fourth but Tweeds
counsel claimed chat ia every where Tweed was
indicted for NEGLECT Of duty in certifying claim
and for forging the Endorsement OF the war
rant issued that CLAIM, one OF the t~o IN
d. tments must fail. They made the still broader
claim that al indictments relating TO matters arising ont
the special Amt Board must fall "a his past punish
uept was full saiissciiOn OF all Oenscs arising under
those transactions and that the only Indictment not re-
ltng TO that Board void, a. having been found mora
tau three years after the transaction, insisting that the
act extending the Statute OF Limitations from three TO
Ave years vas unconst utiona as 10 past transactions
Jud Brady denies the motions, except as TO the two III
dicmens conceded TO have been superseded but manly
on the ground the questions must be raised by piea
or by motion in st Of Judgment. and not by motion
| u qllsh. The following is his opinion:
The indictment dcs mated a." Dec ID 1871, In tho
tabular statement superseded by The indictment Of
! Feb 20 1873 designated IN that statement ~ H. This
il conceded II ~ also conceded that included in thu
omnibr.s' or big indictment" called from the
number OF it, counts and consequent bulk The indict
ment ~ oct T. 1872 was superseded by indictment
OF Feb 20 1873 des cnacd b. the number -. This IS
conceded II also conceded - included in tho
omnibus" Indictment. These indictments contain
charges II would seem, under what Is called the Mock
| Auction Act. II IL also conceded az l under
| stand IL, that the indictment designated y"
| June Ii. 1879, IL also included in the " omnbus'
| Indictment. [ accept these concessions, and
acting upon them draw The legal conclusion that they
ought 10 be abandoned but do not under stand to be the
practice Of the criminal courts TO anticipate in that way
The plea Of previous conviction traltbe old plea "
aur os concct The defendant lcft 10 that defense
The Court suggest that II the concession means that
the subject Of any Of the indictments was presented FOR
confederation on a former trial. and Judgment awarded
upon it, the defendant ought not 10 be an put IN JcO-
ary Il is an unnecessary waste Of the public time. aud
proynkcs an unnecessary expense When an indictment
superseded by subsequently found before the trial
a motion quash proper. After trial, the plea men
toned the prescribed by the rule ana Is per-
| feet answer. II sustained.
These observations relation 20 the plea apply Ia all
the other indictments for msdeneano:s. D0talmted TO
have bel the sub ect Of previous trial. II the matter
embraced have been before tried and disposed OF in any
way As TO these however and indeed to al those for
mi.dcmeanor understand the defeEiant- counsel 10
maintain that the defendant, having been already
punished for violation OF hs duty in respect Ia certain
WARRANTS and as Auditor cannot III reference 20 any oi
warrants alleged TO haNe been pres nie 10, OF 10
have been before nm even though not Included Ia the
Omnibus Indictment, he again punished tIat mere was
hut one crime and that there can be but one punish
|
| Court 0f Appeals IN The People cA rel Tweed AT
Lscomb, but not passed upon, @nnot be entertained on
molten uiash II neither relates 20 the otin nor me
Substance OF the Indictment AMI II REGARDED a. an
rxtaneous TACT, which may be presented on andaVis
must said that II il the subject OF plea of former
conviction and not Of motion t"qiash As understand
subject these modes ot proceeding are entirely dis-
iinct dfcIcnt One involves TRIAL and the other
U il rther claimed by the defendant counsel that the
indictments found IN June, 30 should be qnlshcd Ice,
S', and br,se the l. girlature could not enlarge Tie
for finding indictments from three to nve years IN
respect previous Ofcnses No case dccara0ry Oi -rh
de-, Urine Was referred To, ami thihk none can %
found. II the enlargement took plce>.icf tne cNpIa-
ZION tie years, there Il perhaps little doubt tlt
such legislation would he detective. out in reference To
the ofrnSes charged II appears that the Time was eA-
ws then entirely within control OF the legislature and
acton is not exposed 10 The objection that wa N
violation Of any CONSTITUTIONAL pronbiilon; IL Is also
salt. by the defendants codlsel tnat tue indictments or
To- fine asserted claims Of Mcbride, Davidson Coz and
g. d. Bolr Coz are for the matter AMI should 10
un,,uei This proposition based upon the PROVISIONS
~ he R.yis, II lies that III thcrc he ut any
D ndng against the defendant and two indictments
matter although. charged different ouscs, the iniict
men first found shall deemed 10 be superseded by such
sccon' nd.ctnn III ami shan d. 'lla'l'l. ,. 49,,
The charge ct neglect OF duty IL misdemeanor, aud
EXPOSES tAe offender 10 punishment only ~ me ana I'M
prlooAment III ne county Jan. tne cnaIsc Vi ,sony
may punished by imprisonment ~ the state PI!s".
Neglect Of duty may involve TO some e1'cl u. s@e
m,ttcr chDraced WITHIN TIE CAse ot iOs'i pu. "os
ce,sariiy Th' warrant resulting rom heele.t OK
| Ihe warrant would relate To tho SUBJECT matter
OF the nes ec but the proof would not necessarily IN
| IT,
uent aud the proof OI the act of forgery wo rGsens
the cnlcf features vi the crime In aIon t. that nov"
ever ii must he said that tie charges 81 forgery III tue
third degree against te 'iecndant are ldt ne Wa asc's
sorry before the ac; that ne coIuseed and advises TIC
act OF forgery II appears therefore that those lnc-
not Tor tne same oErlse or Tie rahc nat''s'
IL a. Dc doubtful even whether thc "e.entnS A.
.Orey would Oc compelled W elect Which VI tleln 10
II mts he borne in mind that a motion to iuash
ctm-nt Involves legal discretion, ani tlt wh'n tn
question doubtful the dcicnaani Is Dut 10 MS motion IA
arrest OF judgment. Whca TIE application - made on
the part 0 the defendant, the cUuIs almost uniformly
use TO ,uash indictment where 1t appears To Oe for
some enOInous crime, sucl as ireasOn gerry, PERJURY,
of suhornatiou. They lave aso ref eel TO 4lish for
cncais and generally tine rule may d. stated ~ ., that
TIE right and duiy ~ qaAsA should Oe cI- d 4ee nom
doubt $500.
on the tabular 10 THIS pres ntncn the defend
n1 cuusc, Objects Tat ayers IA Official cericate by
liz defendant, without setting forth TIE reference u
authorities Ia sustain tAs objection citation OF cases
which TO tnD crnie OF forgery, tnr lcs appcIh-
lhg 10 winch necessarily more sct Than 10 TIC CHARGE
u obtaining money Nc, ny Iase prcl'nscs' necase ING
paper forged - tie Gra1ainen oi JAe charge. AID
| that IL is an Instrument Of which The crime
may be pledc4t-d. IN the Indictment the charge
falsely repIcscntlu bill items 10 be correct and true,
ana tie clilgge mlgI b. sstdhcd without ue HntIen
-atutcs, the Oiense Is complete Wien the signature -
obtained by any lase piet'hce WIN liuh u ae. aud
Ine rule Of pc.uns requires TIE plciclses u We stated
IN detail and he ncgatycd but not necessarily All OK
ren II line peal,r Giles pom al ayolIod as necessary
clements Ui proof must tlicSc and negative all Ihs
Indie must contain ali the material iIcts ana e-
cIusaucs which the pubic prosecutor VII be- bOuLd
prove o. 1t show upon ts lace that tie ohcnSe
comm tied hats committed or, IN tine language u
Lord Mansfield 1t must be an ntei.sent story SO ex'
pcit 40 10 support s,k Il does not 10 be n,cCs
saly 10 set any 81 the cOntuyaacts or pIetnscs
winch III print or III writing but 10 state nat they
purfOricu To bc.
The pie,.cr does IN this Indictment, state what tho
certificate puroIicd Ia " namely th' oH'l approval
and ce tice 1c Di II Is true tls II not stcl ex-
prcs,y, Du that the bil " pHlpoftrG 90 have attached
tnrrclo Official p. rONal and certificate Of the sad
Nm. NJ. Tweed Commissioners 81 fuullc works YET
the meaning 10 be- plan tat the approval I.loed
a. Ih, biii not entirely satisfied That tie indct-
mrnt free Nom OiJccuOnH Tie certificate Is 10 10
relied upun part Uf the for TIE People, Dec iso
the docs moi IN terms expressly negative The
! honesty or good iiitn ~ the approval contained
L Ii md NM -.I .IfI IL.