New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-06-15
THE PROCEEDINGS

The Court of Over and Terminer was as
fnllv crowded Yesterday as the previous day. the
Aldermen being present in full force and remaining
through the argument though an important committee
had appointed its meeting for noon. The counsel were
The same as on the previous day and were hand
promptly at 1880 o'clock. Judge Barrett ordinarily
a very prompt Judge did not appear until nearly IL
o'clock when the proceedings began at once MI Field
adopted as his argument the brief prepared by John d.
Townsend and presented Thursday, charging on
some points and as the discussion took a somewhat
Phelps and the and giving
voice to the suggestions Of his son ana Mt Koot' anu
Mr. Field Judge Barrett having allowed him all the
the circumstances under which the indictments were
fOundbOth at the same Courtby the same Grapd jury
and against twO-hirds OF the legislative body oil the Cy
OF New-YOrk. The indictment was for permitting
small newsbOy TO keep NEWSSTAND at corner OF b Two
streets II not improper nor imTertnent 10 SNOW
that of the matter the Judge VINO reeeVed
man and the District-Attorney himself were guilty OF
maintaining greater and more paina0le nusances tnn
those charged in this indictment This was SAID not 70
cast reflections on these gentlemen but TO apply the old
maxim c5ramWis error fdet JUS where it was the com
were not nuisances the law permitted them. ~,
Yet these indictments were presented tor Wliiul
violation of the law against wohlrds OF tae Aldermen
who IL convicted would be deprived OF office II there
intent in good faith to bring these %
be pressed TO trial. to leave this city WITHOUT govern
9 T4s se x ssy %fS NOT be- Confirmed they
Supervisors, and as such eanyasserS OF elections
perhaps unwittngY, continuance TO throw the city
into anarchy. He did not charge conspiracy but the
movers OF the Indictment must be held In law to nave
Intended the natural consequence OF their act-anarchy
ia a city Of million inhabitants, larger community
than Is contained in any OF more than half OF the
If had been said that this was not so much punish
as to test principle If So it abuse OF the forms
OF criminal law. Since when had been the rule 10 test
law by indcting; the aw-Inakersi 1t clear that
This was not bona-de attempt TO punish crime, and
another motive, another object must DelooAed Ior some
HIS FIRST point was an inquiry as to which indictment
found first That one was superseded Dy tne oI1eI
on the argument Of his associates. -, -
DstrictAttOrney Pheps-"In order to remove all en-
barrassment WILL II the Court permits enter noue
prosedu in the Butler indictment"
This announcement produced general mum OF con-
graduation among the Aldermen and their friends, as
being the first victory Oh their side. .
granted the nole prosequ and Mr.. Field insisted that
the question shOud be regarded Of the time when the
lows In order that should make an order quashng
either indictment on this ground am OF OPINION t9 N
the order is made AS one is out OF the way no suen
1reeise declaration of the common law We are to
look at techncates but at the substantial right Of the
defendants not to be held on two indictments or tue
The Distrct-Attorney suggested that the small boy
supeeston sa~ng that the fate of the State did not de-
pend on him Mr. Field thought that he might change
he might at least compel him mr. Pheps 10 take down
his stOop and bay-windows. John Butler quickly dsap-
THE RECORDERS CHARGES.
Mr. Field as his second point took the charges OF
Recorder Hacket the grand jury arguing that they
were passionate and amounted almost to command to
tndict the Health Board and the fifteen Aldermen: and
independent action It should have been, d h a.
least in respect the Recorder Ialsely charged
in regard to the lew when he told them
not to listen 10 accused officials IN tast h9 was
undoubtedly wrong, the act OF 1868 allowed
accused persons to present themselves rs witnesses IN
every criminal proceeding He was also wrong ~ cnar
ing that eli structures in the streets prohibited
and assertions OF fact aud Of wful action OF the Al
dernen, of which not he, but jury was the Judge,
feeling pressed, with such assurances OF Rul anu
with such erroneous charges of law he submitted that
the indictment should be quaShed, ana no man tIeu OF
Third he claimed that legislator bad ever or could
ever be tried for wrong mistaken vote They cOud
he indicted bribery other crimes but not Tor the
vote ITSELF Public policy required their freedom IN tDe
exercise Of their discretion ana IN the case OF
discretion the exemption had been carried 10 the e1
IRENE in Judge Benedict's The only case appar
entity opposed the surdevant case and in that the
civil judgment sustained because II was not legs
istive act that was eniOined -,
But, fourth, there was no mistake. newsstand was
not in itself nuisance, that particular cor
ner. The resolution passed under assurances that
Il would not be obstruction and as was SHOWN, II
would be obstruction 10 anybody who Ola not 20
around be INSTRUCTED by II. The Aldermen had noun
ing with the in which the boy carried out nelr
resolution It could been carried out in legal
way and the Aldermen had the right 10 permit some
structures on the sidewalk. ON broadway there were
hundreds OF showcases and in every street MIGRANTS
Lastly the indictment failed TO show how the stand
was eucrOachment or an ObstrucuOn ana WAS ueIeC
i've. board five feet long by three wide was not III
Mr. Rollins" No a board is not; what is charged is
that the Board Of Aldermen IS unlawful"
Mr. Field said such slurs should not be cast on the
Aldermen elected by the same constituency and as much
withdrew his foxes and Mr. Phelps inquired whether his
learned friend meant to the Board could not be men
toned without casting a slur on them
Mr. Field briefly resumed his argument and Judge
Barrett announced that he would try to decide by Thurs