New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-11-07
III. ". GENETS COA FICTION AFFIRMED.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME. COURT GENERAL TERM
on THR APPEAL.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME. COURT GENERAL TERM
on THR APPEAL.
Henry w. Genet was convicted In the Court
Of Over and IermIner before Justice Daniels OF an at
tempt defraud the city by securing the auditing OF
fraudulent bill against the city William A. Beach, his
counsel carried the appeal before the General
Term and argued for trial. DstrictAttorney
Phelps opposing. decision handed down Yesterday
written by Brady and concurred ia by Justice
Ingalls, II Overrde- the exceptions 10 Judge Daniels
refusal TO charge the Defendants counsel requested
aud holds that the circumstances show that Mr. Genet
had n ar and impartial trial
The Indictment charsed that the defendant on July
Ia 1871 with feloniously TO cheat ana deraud
the city, un awIully and knowingly represented to A
Oakley Hall tnen Mayor that the city was justly in-
debted }. Mob. Davidson IN the sum OF S4sO2 for
maeria furnished for the Ninth District Court House,
and Dill was exhibited this effect The opinion con-
tnues substantially as followsi
at appeared on the trial that Mr. Tweed. Mr. McQuade
and MI. Porter the Commissioners having charge
construction OF tne Court House. and That DAVID
son. beinga dealer ~ OF, applied 20 MT Genet VINO
was counsel the Comm ssOnrrs. for the contract 10
furnish IRON. aud by hIm referred To Tweed. and
that Tweed sad he would see II defendant could
not obtain the contract Tor nun THIS seems To have
b,en m TIA, Winter Of Is7O-'71 at Albany. In
June following, Davidson ana tue defendant had "A
fur. her interview dur NJ wnich the later furnished
Davidson with "a memorandum prepared by the archl.
tecl, from which estimuc OF thu materials required
were made out, The bill was aiterward sent To the
Commissioners aud verified, and To the Controllers
Office whence voucher was forwarded 10 the Mayor,
when signed by him. hr relying upon tie various
formities through winch the bill bad passed that II
correct
Il may seem strange that upon such of
facts be- any doubt tha the defendant was che
originator OF alse representation. Y the iron was not
Delivered al the me the bill was presented 10 the Com
m,ssoucrs The bin was false ~ ey ~ particular No
non had delivered, cartagr had been paid, and
indeed cXccp what might be supposed 10 have been
creled 10y an Informal interview wlth Mr.. Tweed there
was no contract Tor made b tween MIR. Davidson
and the Commissioners, or anybody else III ia quite
evident thai Commissioners guilty Of n'gli-
u
became II reality. d rhe de endauf'- connection
~itn that paper. however hal ceased after IT. propH-
abG presentation, u might well b. That be coud not
br connected OF the offence OF which ie Is accused
tuat the warrant based upon II nad gone
through All the forms required IL received by hun
fom the Controllers Office, ana ihdor'td Dy MN rs Tue
atiOrn. DAVIDSON L. whose order 10 was urawn. II
thus apDcars ta toe defendant IN effect. prepared the
biil containing tht ihHe prechre, presented II u l"e
Commissioners (oi whom he was the counsel, aud woo
night prudent men, have relied upon H. dcsl
ano received the warrant based upon II anu collected rs
amount ..
the act that defendant made no rrprrsen alton per
sonally to the Mayor t. the Controller, or TO tue
the cuargc that did indirectly make to tue Mayor
false representation. false pretence. by the prepare
tally became voucher Ii Is our Judgment cOnse-
quenty, that the PROOF furnished by the prosecution
OF Justice submission OF the question OF the defend
dnPs guilt or innocence TO The jury. and that IL
was sufficient warranted convection n tue jury
believed that whai ne did was done Win fraudulent
intent II may that IN this cnsc tn plaintr ID error
(GeueU 10y the extended examination 81" his cOnnec-
tOn with the Court House prcudicd before the Jury,
objectionable features IN IL operated 10 h- in
Jury. Applying existing rules, we cannot say that In
Justice done, VI hdt tue exceptions relating 20 tb-
subject wei taken There other exceptions OF
kindred those considered, nat We fail 10
in them such error rs requires a new trial.
The exceptions the charge d. judge Daniels and
Chan unavailng 10 tho defendant
The cnaln of developing ana establishing the
Hence was extraordinarily complete careful pc
rusal whole shows that the various issues
were July aud carefully investigated and does not
create The impression that any wrong was done 90 the
defendant the ra by the rules 0i law applied the
Judgment must therefore be aitl med
Assistant Dstrict-AJuincy Rollins sad last evening
tnat the entry OF judgment under TINS decision
the bOnnsmen Mr.. Genet would Toe required 10 sur
render him. Nj. Rollins thought thai II appeal
Should be taken 10 the Court OF Appeals the District
Attorney would oppose motion 10 continue the
prisoners release under the present other ball.
Tue present bail - $4,000.