The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-30

meanor Indictment was complete ana rnianed the
moInent they'gaye The certificate. they caused
and procured me payment the moment rhty dld
that Inc TOT gerry OF she name or the payee 10 the
warrant - an entirely distinct onence. Al any
rate, whether the forgery indictments was barred
by q tria and conviction On the big Indictment
WAS qusstion TO be raised on Lno triai. iney
could no. move to quash an indictment ON the
ground that parry had been tried ON another
Dill found on substantially the same grounds. The
next point as substantially claim mat ~ tine
tTlal upon the "omniDus,n or ''Dgn Indictment
al crimes connected Wltn the Board OF Audit mad
been wiped out. The Court OF Appeals did not
pass upon That question ar All III mas question,
he claimed, thai could not be raised upon
q motion 10 quash but ny plea AS 30 the next
point, Mr.. Peckham claimed tnRg ii was not neces-
sary 10 insert The certificate In tie Indictment.
As 70 the other points, he claimed they coula not
ne raised on q motion TO quasn. He asked the
Court for opportunity 20 submit authorities as
TO the point mat indictments Tor diaerent crimes,
although IN certain degree relating 70 the same
subject matter, may a3ound.
District Attorney ISelps followed, arguing That
motion 10 quash Is oni} 90 be based upon inher-
ent detects IN the indictment ITSELF or racts aud
CIRCUMSTANCES brought TO the knowledge OF tue
CUurf, TO induce the belief that without any oe-
Ienee on the part OF The defendant the prosecu-
tion could not succeed, and claiming That swept
away at once a large proportion or the PROPOSE
tlons urged on the other eide, leaving only,
FIRST, the point that certain things were not set
our IN the lndlctment-and as to tRat ne was con-
fdent the Indictment was correct-and, second,
the point that some OF the indictments had been
superseded by Others. Bat tnat ald not apply 90
the Indictments for forgery. liz was most ex-
traordinary proposition that where . DEFENDANT
haa been charged as pubic ofnclal with miscOn-
duct In his ONCE In that ne cerIi1ed to fictitious
account, that that was bar against him that
subsequently, In a matter not ~ all relating TO
mis- public position, ne either as accessory priu-
clpal, participated In forgery OF the name OF the
payee OF that warrant, and thereby diverted the
proceeds TO Ais own use. II was distinct In pom.
or fact and character, and not necessary TO the
completion OF the other.
DAVID DUDLEY FIELDS ARGUMENT.
Mr. Field-fhe Court will nave perceived In the
course OF this argument what said the other day
was true, that IL Is Impossible to argue these mo-
lions IN any limited time 40 justice to them.
There are seventeen motions, and each one should
be argued by itself SO far undertake TO say the
questions are involved in the utmost obscurlty.
No man can tell from anything said to-day wnCA
OF the indictments are superseded and we are
obliged 10 leave you TO wade through the ques-
lions as you can, or we have got TO take time and
take them one ~ one IL mas been forced upon Us
minis or TO the gentlemen the medicine they
proposed Tor No. When they tried the defendant
be convicted there was an end OF all prose-
cuton on the warrants. That was the
langGago Of ar. Treman; therefore we
we say fnat everything that IS contained be-
tween these Two counts IA tais dig indlct-
IN mt s satisfied by the law, and 70 bring
the defendant TO TRIAL upon any one OF tnese
charges again IS an act ol oppression, and con-
trary to the constitution OF the country winch ae.
clares that no man snah DO twice put IN jeopardy
Tor the same offence.
MIR. Field quoted the case ar The People vs.
Barry where II was held that alter person nad
beeh indicted for assault 70 XIII ne could not 30
indicted for ROBBERY IN reference 20 the same
there could be no indictments Tor forgery alter one
Tor mlsoemeanor on the same clam. MIR. Field
also argued that the questions could be properly
raised on motion 10 quasn, ami, referring to Mr.
PeCkhans request FOR time w furnish authorities,
claimed nrst the right to see them ana reply
Juage Brady SAID be mad not understood such a
request 10 have been made
MT Peckham conceded that he had
Mr.. Fleld-I am very glad that my learned friend
comedies that for once 1 was rght, ioE from tue
beginning be had asserted that we were al
wrong. on the writ OF naDeas corpus ne said our
motion was preposterous, ana ne goE judge
Judge Barrett TO quasn II on the groand that no
sane man could suppose such writ could be got
out. Ne were al wrong nom the beginning.
Now. after about nine months, the gentleman ud
mlts we right for once | am very much
obliged TO the gentleman. The Court or Appeals,
II had been sald that no saue
man could suppose such writ could be got Out,
mad never heard suggestion BY anybody 10 the
contrary whose opinion wa9 worm anytnlD 4.
However, tins counsel did what they supposed Waa
then best, although they were mistaken. Mr..
Field went over the indictments IA detail ascer-
tanning which IL was cons dered we're superseded,
and argued at length that the Others should lie
quashed on the grounds presented hy him. insist
ing tnas Tweed would not De punished On mluaiY
auy more Tor any transaction whatever ne Audi
tor under the act OF April, 1870.
The court reserved decision.