New-York tribune., 1879-11-12

DstrictAttorney Phelps appeared for the People; Am
brose H. Purdy for the prisoners The latter demanded
separate trials. aud Washington E. Hall was brought TO
the bar.
The testimony OF Henry Hilcnbury clerk in the Bu-
reau OF Elections. and of ex-Aldcrnan Waehner, was
admitted under exception. show that the imperfect
returns signed and delivered by Mr. Hail. No evil
dence was given for the Prisoner, but MI Purdy asked
the Justice TO direct acquitted on the ground that
there evidence 10 show wilful Intent TO violate
the law. But Justice Davis said that that question
for the Jury The offered in evidence showed upon
their ace that alteration of seventy voes had been
made ia the figures OF the number OF ballots cast, the
alteration being IN favor OF Alderman al. The Justice
ln charg the Jurors subm ted 10 bem the PROPOSE
uon of DiSrcAttOney Pneps: that, while under this
indictment. the alteration not evidence II fraud
ei they had The right TO cOnsuer hearing upon the
question OF the wfuncss Of tie act with which the
prisoner was charged. lf the laN with regard TO attach
lng the separate kinds OF bilOis mad been complied
with, IL would have been possible TO ascertain by
simple computation whether the alterations were fraud
uent The jury had. therefore the right TO consider the
alterations So far as ihoy threw light upon The wfnl-
rss OI the dc charged ana proven Inc ony quest on
before tie jury tnc neglect 10 comply with the law
hemg conceded was as to the wifalncss OF tue neglect
The Justice continued:
Ii. in tine absence OF explanation. you come the
conclusion thai there fraud about IT, that the
reason vas because mere was desire 10 commit some
fraud tat The ballots not put In the statute re-
qulcs aud TIE entry made partly written on the bai-
Ios. theu you WI nave To hnu WIllui intent 10 20
wrongful act bich the statute requires YOU to find
do not mean To indicate any opinion ON my part AS 70
whether you ought o ought noi 10 fnd that In the alb
sc1cc Of al explanation from his evidence now before
addition 10 what have said TINT n this class OF cases,
Wh, thc jury should require that the facs should be
SHOWN satisfactorily beyond reasonable doubt, yet, IN
asmuch as fhe public have no protection against tnis
Oi fraud ava crime except by the enforcement Ot
TINS law the jury should vrr sink from the duty Oi
enforcing IL where tACN satisfied thut fraud ms
brcu ptrpetrHtcd totally IresIcctVc OF party C)rsd-
cIaon-; because yOu aS intelligent men, must know,
under system Oi government TINT there Is no IOn-
daOu the mali tcnamce Of our Institutions except
IN the eniuTct1ncnt OF the laws 10 preserve the
purity of elections. Our theory Is that The people
appcur at fhr polls and determine by their votes who
sr be their officers and II the persons who are 10 cam
the aud declare how many cast for tue
respective candidates aTeto tamper with pcrNCrt OF
the votes. the whole stem Il end and II
won't stand up under such course ~ conduct the
of public officers Will " be tolerated by courts
and juies 80 tnat if come TO The conclusion In
thu case, from the evidence before that the act
charged IN the indictment, and tna the intent
wa- frauduentfi % was done dt slgucdly and with al
intent tO deiraud any candidate 10y making change OF
the votes Withholding the evidence Of hat change
saw como - ,hrt conclusion, then trust that you
VIII shriuh from doing duty 10y c"nycting the
But. IL ia 30 come 10 that CONCLUSION,
VIII tnen be equally your duty 10 acqIit him"
The jurors were ont nearly three nl urs. Ihey came
back once for urther instructions aud soon dterward
returned win verdict Ol gully with "a recommenda-
tlon the mercy of the Court stay Oi proceedings
obtained pending the argument oi the motion IN
arrest Of judgment next Monday The penalty IS inprs
state Prison for not less than year. The
prisoner is young man With family oi i've children.