New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-04-16
DECIDED AGAINST JAEHNE.
RECORDER sMYTH DENIES HIS MOTION.

AS uH MADE A CONFESSION HE PROBABLY KNOWS
WHAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIN IS.
The attention of the District Attorneys Of
flee was yesterday to the trial OF General shaler
aud no movement made In regard TO the bribery or
Aldermen Mr. Nicol SAID that probably nothing further
would be done until the shaer trial finished. Tho
question OF the possibility Of convictng brbegivers on
tho Testimony In the hands OF the District Attorney 10
now under careful examination at Mr.. Marines ONCE
Recorder Frederick Smyh rendered yesterday his de-
cision tho motion made by Alderman Horny w.
JaeAnes counsel for bill Of particulars Of the charges
against him. and for copy of tho minutes OF the evil
dence taken by the Grand Jury. The motion was mado
several days ago. and was argueds by Roger A Pryor
and Richard s. Newcombe for the motion, and District
Attorney MARITIME and Assistant Dstrct-Attorney De-
aucey Ncol against the motion The Information par
| ticulary desired to the person with whom and
| tho place where the alleged corrupt agreement was
made which led to the indictment for bribery MI.
MARITIME, In his affidavit against the notion said that
| tho Indictment procured only on documentary
| evidence and the testimony OF Inspector Byrnes
| The Recorder In the opinion fled by him says:
The defendant does attempt to deny that he made
confession TO Byrnes OF the crime charged IN the In
dctment II such confession was made and as the
defendant In his affidavit says that from facts within
his knowledge tho Indictment was procured mainly II
furnish him with what he already knows to enable him
TO prepare his defence The atavil in support OF this
lie the court compel District Attorney to permit
the to inspect the minutes OF the Grand Jury
|
purpose which the defendant ks such inspection
As the request for the bill Of particulars tho Re-
| cordcr says
1t may laid down as the result of the adjudcaons,
that only proper office OF bill OF particulars ia to
give Information OF specific propositions for which
issua6e case. but to disclose the
relied upon to establish any such proposition. The
allegations Of the offence charged against the defendant
does not give him adequate notice OF the charge
mined mainly upon an inspection or the lndictnent
itself The time is stated to be the Goth OF August 1884,
the place wherc the crime committed the city and
county OF New-York and the amount agreed on to be re-
ceiyed a. $4,000.
The Recorder after reviewing the indictment says:
The plainly and concisey appear upon the face
OF the indictment 1t seems to inc that there Is nothing
alleged AS they are alleged The time. place. agreement
and the therefor are each clearly aud CON
all the facts which the prosecution coutended consti-
tuted the offence with which the defendant IS charged.
aware of. be given by bill Of particulars and
o sees to- by his notion Except til" Of the
person with whom the alleged agreement was made ana
appear the face OF the indictment that the name
OF this person is unknown to the Grand Jury
As to the suggestion that the DstrctAttorney now
the Dame the Recorder that there is proof
OF that allegation, and that It is doubtful whether the
would IL it had the power compel him to disclose
It. Tho Recorder then reviews the eases cited by the
defendants counsel and finds nothing In them at var
with the rules by which he had been governed in
arriving at his conclusions. The Recorder also denies
the request for an inspection OF the testimony taken be-
fore the Grand Jury the grounds that the District
Attorney had stated that the testimony OF the only wit
moss related to a confession that the motion papers
show rreguarity in the Grand Jury proceedings and
that the rights of the defend
ant have been nured and mad been cited by
the defendants counsel. The Recorder concludes
Many could be urged against the propriety OF
giving MIN such permissQn one OF which IL Ia only
necessary to mention. aud that Is when as IL notorious.
the Grand Jury had under investigation charges OF
criminal acts. I'm which q number of persons were
charged. many of tina persons being III actual
tody opportunity would thus he given by which ne
ends o. Justice might be frustrated. The dcfendanps
motion in both Its parts must therefore he denied
The decision Of the Recorder is nal the matter is
one the discretion of tho judge and appeal can be
taken.