The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-11-12
INDICTED INSPECTORS.
MENDED TO THE MERCY OF THE COURT
SENTENCE DEFERRED


MENDED TO THE MERCY OF THE COURT
SENTENCE DEFERRED.
There called up for trial. in the Court OF Oyer
and Terminer yesterday Judge Davis on the Bench)
the indictment In which Washington f. Hall. Thomas
Boland. Michael Murphy and Cornelius Foley were
charged with wilfuI neglect of duty inspectors of
election in failing to attach to their returns certain
ballots. Tho acts which formed the basis of tho
prosecution were alleged to have occurred on tho
occasion of the contest for Alderman Of the Sixth
Adermanic district. between George Hall and Jacob
A. Hanzell, in November. 1878. Hanzell contested
the seat of Mr.. Hall before tho Board of
Aldermen and defeated. He then COM
mcnced a suit in the Supreme Court to determine
the same question. which thrown out of
court as being irregular. And now comes a last
the criminal prosecution of the Election In
spectors. The accused parties represented by
Elijah L. Purdy. who asked for them q separate
trial. which granted. and Mr.. Washington L.
Hall was placed on trial. The prosecution rep
resented by District Attorney Phelps and his assist
ant, Mr.. Lyons. The law requires that on the back
of the return n sample OF each particular kind of
ballot cast IN the election district embraced by the
return shall be pasted. From the return in this
instance sample of one ballot, that for Alderman.
was omitted and this the head and front of the
offending OF tho indicted officials. The returns
showed 300 votes for Hall aud 20 for
more than 20 votes and that some Of his
votes had been transferred to Hall. In this
the prosecution insisted that II the inspectors
had made their return IN proper legal form its
truth falsity could have readily been MAIDS
apparent. The return filed in the Election Bureau
at Police Headquarters was produced aud objected
to by Mr.. Purdy. on the ground OF not being sum
ciently identified having been signed and delv-
cred by Mr. Hall but Mr.. Wachncr. counsel for Han
cell. the witness stand and testified that
an examination before n police magistrate Mr.. Hall
admitted the returns to be those which were signed
by him. The hlod in the office of the County
Clerk was then submitted in evidence and with this
proof the prosecution closed. MIR. Purdy, the
part OF the defence offered to show that during the
past fifteen years 1t had not been regarded by cleo
ton inspectors All imperative part of their duty
to attach samples of the ballots; but the Court
ruled out the testimony.
NO FOR THE DEFENCE.
After brief recess, to allow MIR. Purdy oppor-
tunity consult with his clients to the line of
defence, he concluded not to present any testimony.
aud contented himself by making motion that the
Court direct the jury to find that there evil
dence show that there had been any wlful neglect
on the part of the inspectors. He sScalled atten
ton to the tact that II this omission Was considered
important by the county canvassers the returns
could have been sont back for correction.
District Attorney Phelps asked the Court to charge
that the jury in determining tho wilfuiness OF the
neglect could take into consideration the alterations
n tho returns. the correctness or neoxroetnsss Of