The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-06-21
JUDILANT CITY Fathers.
The Indictment Against Fifteen Of
Them Quashed.
JUDGE BARRETT'S OPINION.
BY Whom Win the LAWYERS
Fees Be Paid /?

Indictment against the Board OF Aldermen. In the
expectation that lie would do SO the Court Of Oyer
and Tsrmner was filed by large crowd, made up
manly VI special political friends and partsans oil
The Aldermen the LATTER IN the prior proceedings
putting in a prompt appearance. Their array
Of legal deienders-h essrs David Dudley Field John
D. Townsend, ex Judge Dittenhoeier, Elhu Root and
Dudley Field-were early on hand, also District At
tornsy Phelps ana his corps OF assistants. Judge
Barrett, directly on taking his seat the beach,
proceeded 10 read his decision, which listened
with the NEST earnest attention. As the reading
progressed and 1t became evident that the Indictment
would be quashed It was noticeable that the Alder
men interchanged pleasant nudges and mods aud the
outside crowd congratulatory smiles and winks The
following is the opinlon:-
JUDGE BARKsTr's OPINION
the rules m9,o.s 70 qussn are well settled
discretion Of the Court his OF abiI
exercised whenever for any which sood to
s wa h
ceenaant The motion may be founded upon iects APP
insic matter Where in.uniceney alone complained or
me s San WIN NOV qIasn aie,s the Is
murrer motion in Or writ Of error, and this
aisanes, win Ssso@s ineSss.aa e Where, 'i nas-
the ss sssl.s.
Of the rEic rule cannot ee ssia to prevail In
enacted OF ste years ssstutes cutains the
in IN as IL
sdsrng that the Court way make available
necessary elevate this motion iAan is
give wssis sss,s1 before
proper applies OF these enables us without DIM
SaS 1 E.as to
ruled 'Ssss are s a o uss must s
soun. is not or dup lefty equally clear that il
aveed the aecndants escape either upon lie
plea that theirs legislative which called
of a
srstion IN ,as Of their duty wasre act Is
discretion. ss.s,ivs sI.a AZ municipal al
.s pIoee ana ITS are SUBJECT 10 legal
the provision in question is negaton Of power
while h.yo ensaed their shss
they arc not amenaDe Ms TOR the violation OF express
EXPRESS PROHIBITIONS
might ws sf be 0H to her al s
may say however, that even II the deisnaants position
daSs the Of common eoanei nss nae =.
s sns g s sa sxsssns their This
the two serious points OF the case The hst is
nsnt ana zoe. g the root Of ns
svered, and consequently whether a offence has
osensr The were Gs sesss
ss 10 the law on the subject of stands
to the right O the Grand jury 20 call OFF,
sf These ssi ~ asr WI. 'Ss
Cons s sepSSta.e - to the nt cutie svden.
and encrosehments As used IN section IA OF the charter
,.ss are The sn.s; prohibit.
q the charter l. = misdemeanor Ergo, the grant
asineanor his is scarcely . correc. view Of % ins
y. ns.ns q Iva
Other ana somswhat Obscure provision OF the charter
upon surface seems COMPREHENSIVE enough 70 cover
obstucens and sneroachmsnts OF every kind and char
broadest sense the Sidewalks must be absolutely cleared
But must Dc general principles OF con.
ana especially in the light Of Cue tina.
'hsss is srP Pso aass :, BEEN ols ss y Defined
highway that vii! smosns 70 a nuisance ana bo
cssonal intsnup,ion: are Incidental 70
Necessity ana the benefits, resulting to tho pubic a. large
~ the acts causing the interruptions II the obatrnc
smreS ILLEGAL merely because tue public may not 10, the
dehntion of an obstruction constituting nuisance
INSTRUCTIONS ENcRoAcHMENrs
ton ~ Of the eha.ss gives the Common .ounc power
ps ps II M ss 6ea %
power TO regulate the the walks
aF s"a' "0Is'
81 s;ssy as.
T.. as S.y fsss force which ns
ssys ~ s IN the necessity S ref
the ordinance February "a 1865 which expressly reg
The newspapers, irn books naise
qf The streets r., Or
satur, did not mean TO condemn all showcases and all
merchandise as Or encroaehSen.s The
re.ul. is inevitable that newsstand per 80 MT
meaning the charter That may become such cannot
other up the es sns prevents o
nee psssass + both public na.sne ana statutory OBJ
and cannot protect himself under municipal authority
depend upon its characteristics and surrounoin. 3
Now all that the delenaants are charged vita is the
Bulle 70 Keep stand Tor he sale OF newspapers at tho
Just did this authorize obstruction unlaw vi
structure On the contrary authorized
this au,horty to keep new. stand John Butler
amount - legal obstruction. the responsibility rested
soe.y With him aud ne could not shield himself under
WA, not thersors an offence We ado tnat the char
by sps o. Puse wars .Sn. rem sn
osins resort to the criminal law unnecessary for the
We - Ks. ssss nil
dicment consideration BY Grand jury the
learned keeorder instructed that boay in substance that
.i,ne.s. ana tina, they had exceeded their duty IN dong
examine person and tina, latter cannot
clam The ght ~ appear with his witness before the
5sa. 81 ,e accused and 80. p.ws' 2, the rsnd Jury
ba to ascertain sh. rn. and "Gr S"'rs
Upon prino,pe they should no. be- strictly Confined
sutor. but should have the privilege OF oblan-
ing additional hight b sending for others. The
opposite view was formerly maintained in kagiand But
,pssAing Of this rule entity remarks that II may be
deaoied whether they are sworn 10 present the truth
which necessarily rot uires la they
DO abe 10 elicit truth from the witnesses the
sutton and actually convinced OF that circumstance,
they may sot require ether testimony assist them IN
forming their decision" lie ADDS that n" they unaoe
SATISFY themselves Of the truth uicienty 10 warrant
their ~ ,ney may p,oosr, see. other no,ma
eannst proceed.p Mr. Bishop says 10 Justify them
finding blu shey should refuse no pertinent evidences.
whether to against the prisoner, Weighing
whole testimony they should be satisfied that
10 guilty" In charge to the Grand jury MIR. Justice
tiea instructed them only TO receive legal evidence n
to this Qualification" lie observed you will receive
all evidence eDted which throw light upon
under consideration, whether tends TO establish
the or the guilt Of the accused. ~ in
inquiries have believe that
other evidence not presented to within your
re ach which would quality explain the cnarse
under investisation. IL will be your duty
such evidence to be prouuced.n There authorities
the other but the above stions
fairly the spirit The ancient doctrine doubt.
based upon that the Graud
IL possible evidence be adauced
hut this the rule. ".rsat authorities,
Chitty, have mcrcul view Of tine subject,
The ignominy. the danger OF PERJURY the
delsy ana the misery o prison, argued
that Inquest ought Tar the evidence before
them aces. TO be convinced of the guilt OF the
MT iuu %