New-York tribune., 1875-02-02
THE GARDNER AND CHARLICK CASE.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS IN
THE CASE OF HUGH GARDNER AND OLIVER
CHARIICK. PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, AGAINST THE
pEOPIE-THE RULINGS OF TIE COURT QUEs-
TIONED-AN IMPORTANT POINT RAISED.
lBY TELEGRAPH TO TIE TRBUNE.l
ALBANY, Feb 1.-The case Of Hugh Gardner and
Oliver Charick, plaintiffs in error, agt The People,
was argued to-day in the Court of Appeals by
A. Oakley Hall for plaintiffs in error. and Deputy
Attorney General Charles S. Farchd for the people.
Mr.. Hall spoke for two hours, but the Deputy At
terney- Generals argument shortened by ex-
pressons of assent from the judges various points
presented. showing that further argument was un-
necessary. Counsel for plaintiffs argued that the
court below erred in excluding the offers to show
by evidence what Cbarlick and Gardner believed
20 be the facts of the oense of the election inspector
Sheridan, whom they removed, and in ruling that
The jury not to consider the intent with which
She removal was made. Under this head the ques-
ton Of intent or motive bearing upon the Oues-
ton of guilt was considered at great length, and it
was urged that the court erred IN not
allowing plaintiff in to prove the
knowledge Of law, wi;h misapprehension
aud mislppcatiOn under legal advice. 1t
was argued that there should be arrest of judgment
because the allegations Of the indictment did not
warrant its conclusions The Election law is pro-
-
created by implications by prohibitions implied
h statutory exec Jtons There should be arrest Of
Judgment because the statute which it was claimed
Charlick and Gardner nfringed, not intended to
place prohibitions upon public officers. There
Uhould be a new trial because the court erred in
holding the ac: Of removal was impliedly pro-
hbted by the section claimed TO have been violated
The Deputy Attorney General quoted the language
of the section said 70 have been violated and argued
chat the court was correct in holding that the intent
with which person violates provision OF law can
not be shown upon the trial of an indictment
The point of deepest interest in both arguments,
on account of its being of far greater impor
tance is that of the iurs LECTION of the Court of Cen
eral Sessions. Mr. Hall brought forward in behalf
of his clients point on which Tweeds lawyers are
understood to be relying that the Court OF Special
Sessions in New York alone has jurisdiction to try
fnisdemeanors unless that Court orders any COM
pant to be sent to the Court Of General Sessions or
unless the accused prefers TO be tried in the latter
court. This provision was not unconstitutional, he
argued. as taking away absolutely the tIial by
fury because this statute gave the defendant Alright
of election Of trial by jury. Mr.. Fairchild said that
the Court of General Sessions had jurisdiction to
find and the Court of Oyer and Terminer to try. the
Indictment The law of 1855 did not intend in its
Grst section, to confer jurisdiction on the Gene
raj Sessions 10 try HI cI'nes anu iniSuo
meanors whatsoever, and then take it away in the
ffth section. by saying that theS pecial Sessions
shoud have power to hear all complaints for misde-
meanors. Under tins construction of the law, Mr.
Eairchild holds not only would vast number OF
convictions in NewYork during the last 20 years be-
come void, but there could be no indictment unless
the guilty person assented to it. Under this con-
Itruction Tweed might have escaped punishment
altogether by remaining in a neighboriDg State until
the statute of limitation had run its course.
The Court of Appeals may not find 1T necessary TO
give decision on this point; but, in case the
opinion does cover it, its decision must largely
affect the Tweed case. and may dispose Of II alto
zether. Mr.. Hall was very earnest in this argu-