New-York tribune., 1875-06-30

yss se2ec Y B9lar Q" F0Isssy Se Sssr's
E is'S 30 ss1,a os O. D. Bolar Co. Forgery Sd degree
xeo ~ 51- SSss'iii1 Ss'iii1 "a do. Misdemeanor
s:S g. 'sss .sGss s as%1sa A''''%'''''
r1s ss's so.. ee,.es SO Davidson Co. Nsde%eanOr
FsS F 90. &C. i2.sis sssls g g 1nsePsor q.
r i SsBiiss S6s 6s1t.Sa s Forgery dS degree
FEB 20. $3.50 90 c. BoliaT Co c.,,,nS az Mayor.
Nov i9e7o7 30 Al earvey sigDatfs rfeIss Sy fase
Inn. Is. s5oe5s IS Keyser & Co. Msdemeanor'
glance at the schedule, said MI fieid "ouia snow
that the indictment marked and that marked H. were
for the same thing and charged the same crc' anu '
..ma vas true of those marked M and To- AS tnose
marted and TO- 2 and IL, and z, and z, they were
found the same day. The defendant hao DO means VI
knowing which was found first. THESE were pl'un9 ,oi
the same ofense the indictments called ana 'h 'e
,chedue being upon warrants of the four covered
nv Indictment No. z. The indictments marked D. D.
~ 20 .ra 4 wae all on warrants under
the special audit proceedings, as indeed were all 'hes
tndict,nents The indictments marked A. H. NJ To- anu
Yvere all for ofenses included IN the OMNIBUS ihuo
nent ON which Mr. Tweed had been tried and convicted
their first point was that the indictment marked had
been found by Illegal Grand Jury Ihey paSseu Una"
nv Was clearly superseded by the indictment marked
"A indictment was as clearly superseded by NO lo'
No l by No. TO- No. 2 by No. IL, Nos and py NO Z"
Mr. Tweeds misconduct in the Board OF Audit hau oee''
already passed and punished Inc Dig lAolc'"o"'
had answered its purpose that respect and the law was
satisfied. -,
Mr. Phelps assedif Mr.. Field claimed thls as 10 oi-
fenses not specified in the indictment
Dudley Field answered, Certainly, since that ihuic
ent covered all onenses done by him as auditor ana ne
had been once punished for violation OF his duty as
auditor In respect any of the warrants alleged to nave
come before him such, even though not mciuoen III
the omnibus Indictment. The neglect OF the defendant
subected him TO punishment only, no matter to now
many warrants that neglect extended. There was but
sne crime and there be but one punishment"
The indictment marked X, continued Mr. Ffeld did
not set out the certificate and approval by the prisoner
mentioned In IT, and therefore fatally detective Ihe
last indictment found the present time was void owing
20 the Statute Of limitations The act of the Legislature
extending the statute was erposdcto In reiauoh 10 a
preyous oenses As to the indictments under the mock
auction act at loss to see how under the decision
sf Ranney sgt The People, 1t could be pretended 10
maintain that anything in the indictments made out
ease There was no common law cheat alleged, and the
statute only extended to such ofenses
Mr. Peckham In answer said that to save time he con-
seded that apparently, the indictment marked was
.nperedcd by indictment IA unless the latter had been
ouashed and indictment NJ by indictment TO- That was
mere matter of inspection. both indictments covered
toe same matter latter superscded the former But
"A TO the indictments and TO- and H. and z, ana
and = no such rule held good AS he remembered In al
the forgery indictments Tweed was indicted as an scces
sorv bciore the fact That ofense was entirely dlcent
from the neglect OF duty In auditing TIE ns nnc ~
wess 1ssy Of the a sae SeeG S
his corrupt neglect TO audit had T caused es pay
was complete the warrants were issued II after
ward the prisoner forged an indorselent 10 procure pay
ment TO himself OF the warrant issued that constituted
daerent and separate crime The ohense in one case Is
directly against the ety. IN n ns onfl Of tbe boos
evidence Of the forgery OF warans WAS refused oecase
DAVID Dudley Field here called Mr. Peckham's atten
ton TO the fourth count IN the BOOK Indictment WHICH
thst he thereby obtained the payment Of money. and
asked that did not cover all acts precedent 10 the pay
Mr. Peckham answered that 1t did not. That indictment
was prostitution of the once 70 procure
a faae fraudulent, and fictitious claim to the payee
thereof The crime complete when the prisoner gave
The certificate on which was 70 DC a nrqo anu t
was subsequent act and independent OF IT, Hc admitted
that tins warrant was p%, ia Dto tGe dcny 81 cn
they must examine the Indictment not inc evidence loi
the evidence might oe pertinent on very distinct
As To- the question whether these indictments
ay were by the trial or by the indictment that
should be raised Plea OF autrsfois convict not on
motion TO quash. so far as could pe inferred the ae
prisoner was on the first count OF that indictment alone
and they at nosry o. T TO as E S E T'ne
Supported that, because the prisoner had been tred on
eo se tried for other oenscs committed by him
esrne Office That went beyond Judge Consock's argu-
sth"r o Of the opinions OF the court But amy rate that
matter could not be decided on Inspection only AT least
there should DO w Pi"'0 WIZ iu''S va '@
Xs 10 The lack OF setting out the certificate attached to
the hi, i'm the for false peteDses the certn
cate Of Tweed no part OF the false pretense IL
fraudulent bill 10 be genuine Nothing re-
uuired the setting of thing more than tho facts
remedy and IL well settled that both IN criminal and
Anvil control OF the Legislature over Tie
remedy absolute even II its result Was to revive
Lost reinedy As 10 the mockauciion indictments the
Ranpey decision simply held that the act did not create
new crime where there was not n common law cheat.
This was cheat law even without the use OF
statute simply makes what before punishable with
one year the Penitcn tar punishable with three years
II State Prison.
the Court would not quash Indictment ON MOTION
appeared that from defects on It's face
pnrsuit on 1t would be futile, and that nothing which
plea Of the Statute of Limitations, plea Of previous
TRIAL should De- heard such motion. indictments
marked and we're apparently superseded; that
could he ascerained on INSPECTION put as " the OILERS
place the tiers which the motion was made before
The Court II seemed 10 him extraordinary prOp0sl
ton because the defendant had heen convicted rs a
official OF neglectng his duty as 10 pcyit Inc payment
of cla that should be bar to prosecution fOr
private unofficial forgery The oheDses were distnct
In tine place, character, and the person iDluIeI'
David Dudley Field, in reply, SAID II was plain eHat Ia
nited time these motions could not be properly heard
There II Of them, and cach sIouo- De heau py
it.eK Nor could he see any public necessity Ior tlh
pressure AS 10 any hardship IN the matter ne was ony
yressing their medicine on their lips Twice hau e
Srosecuon av0wed that the omnibus indictment would
T. an end 70 AL the indictments against his cnent Their
own address the jury had been repudateo py then
and the answer TO that yepudiatloh had Svno III the
unsuimous decision OF the Court N dpp"as agans.
them The Constitution said that no man should be
nut twice Ia Jeopardy for the same Onense. What
yaa meant by the onenset The test was that The
came evidence must b gwen 70 convict The statute