The daily gazette., 1881-04-16

THE ELECTION CASES.


THE TRIAL OF THE TENTH WARD
INSPECTORS DRAWING TO A
CLOSE.
On the reassembling Of Court this
morning, in the case of the U. s. VS..
Joseph McCafferty and Henry Wit
sill, Inspectors of the Tenth ward Tor
refusing the vote of James Mat
thews, COL, Charles B. Lore, Esq.,
for the defense, addressed the court.
He said this was the first case In this
court arising under the United states
election laws, and it was therefore
important to have the fall bearing
OF the laws clearly defined. He ask
ed that the court particularly charge
upon this point That the lnspec-
tors were acting in judicial capa-
city and not liable for mistake in
iudgmeut-only for wilful, inten-
tional and malicious violation Of the
law. He held that the prosecution,
to obtain a verdict, was bound to
show that the Inspectors did not
perform their duty, and that their
refusal TO accept Matthew'S vote
was corrupt one.
Mr.. Lore then made strong ad-
dress to the jury, first claiming that
there was great doubt as to Mat
thew's right to vote, and even If he
were legal voter the circumstances
of his case were such that the In
spcctors we're only exercising the
Judgment the law imparts to their
official position IN deciding not to
accepting bis vote. He claimed
that the Inspectors were no more
liable to conviction and punishment
for mistake in judgment than his
honor Judge Bradford would be to
impeachment for making an error In
expounding to the jury the law bear
ing upon this case. He argued for
about thirty minutes In strong and
convincing manner.
District Attorney Patterson clos
ed for the government, claiming
that the evidence showed the rejec-
ton of the vote to be illegal ,wanton
and unjuatifabls.
After ali hours argument, by the Dis
trict Attorney, Judge Bradford charged
the jury. He said there were three points
10 be proven by the pros cution, in order
to entitle them 10 verdict:
1.-Matlhews' right to vJte.
2-That having this right, his vote
was rejected.
3.-That his vote was wilfully aud
knowingly refused.
II was essential 10 prove all three o.
these points before the accused can bt
convicted.
As TO the question Of Matthews resi-.
dence, the Court held that IL he simply
went away for visit he did not lose hi
residence, but II he did not intend Il
come back his residence was lost. ThI,
was a question for the jury 10 determine
and was a question for the inspectors L
determine at the time from the evidence
before them.
The only question Of import anOe il
was the vote knowingly and wllfully re-
fused. There appeared TO be no testi
moby TO show there was any contes
among the inspectors as TO the rejection
OF the vote, futher than one Of them say
ing be thought Matthews had a right Il
vote, and another saying he though
differently.
As TO the intention OF the Inspectors
the court said The jury must judge from
what took place before them At the time
inspectors act in q judicial capacity, al,
are not TO De held responsible for ner,
errors OF Judgment. To warrant a con
Viction the evidence should be sufficient
to convince the jury that the Inspector
believed the vote they were refusing u
be legal vote.
| At IL o'clock the jury retired fer con
sultation.
The balance of the Jury panel aud al
the witnesses were then discharged unit
10 O'Clock next Tuesday morning /,
which time the Court will adjourn Whel
the McCafierty and Witsil jury conclude
Its deliberations.
STILL OUT.
| At o'clock the jury had not agreed
| unOn n verdict.