New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-10-06

80 ERROR FOUND IN THE INDICTMENT OR TRIAL
OF JAEHNf.
ALBANY, Oct. 5.-Tne Court of Appeals has
handed down decision affirming the sentence OF the
lower court the OF Henry W. Jaehne. The opin-
ion was prepared by Judge Andrews, Judges Rugrr.
Danforth Miller and Fitch concurrIng and judges
Rapallo and Earle dissenting. Judge Andrews says:
principal qu ston this appeal whether the crime
OF oGIy eS r I y y nmnshsbl under ihe P@nsi Code or
only under the Now.York city Consolidation Act OF lss2
the defendant ind ted and convicted Of bribery as
Under section ~ Code sentenced
psonmcnt Prison for the term OF nine years and
len months pursuant To the provisions OF that section
whereas punishable only the Consolidation act
& nav % WV SsS ave is r m I "r c"nrmson thai section 81
Of Consolidation superseded by section u
Penal Code and that the crime Of bribery committed by
member of the Common Council Of the city Of Newfok IS
defined and made punishable by that section ndeiem nng
later enactment although point Of fact passed prior
to the Consodston The Penal Code passed July 2e
AZ Passca 5"y s Isl e an@ cS1 ss M@eH
prcssy declares that for the purpose Of determining
the ec Of TINS act Other ae tie pb s ep @
act deemed have been enacted the Isl Of Jan
the Code have the same cneci after
therefore the although enacted before the CONSOLE
daton Act is to have the effect The Consolidation
though somewhat anomalous does not as perceive
9' ye Hl to S ena Ss 'T
the two statutes in conflict. and, what is
indication that in the sense Of the Legislature there
might penal provisions in the Consolidation Act in conflict
Win e Penal Code For the Of & GonsTueiOn IT.; ITO the
& s Ss % % S enaSe CT and
question Of egslaye power II tne plan 9niy & Gl
material at the outset to inquire whether the offence Of
bribery committed by municipal officers is as general rule
within and punishable under this section OF the
apply TO the bribery OF municipal oieer IN any case then @
vcon IT, the other hand the section applies in general
to @ eas e 'hs @ o1d be & II the
Of bribery committed 6y municipal officers IN ihe city OF
Of this section The comprehensive character OF the pro-
70 Ss dedhon the Offence and the by
be commit'e apparent upon the most oaTory rssns
specifics judicial officers. but the specification Is io,
appsqcSy G To- include s fSi this provision
within The state Of whatever or grade not
judicial Oer but also person who execntss any Of the
VII Although bribery Of Judicial officer is
specially provided for by section H. plain plain that SasSa
the functions OF public Office and we cannot
Sa'i # 'as s was e pan on the language Of the section
there are eogent for giving t OF
the IN Iesiss%fe that bribery
embrace bribery Of municipal osis .e,s we 81 hnd @ no ea n
applies general the offence of bribery committed by
The general Bribery Act of 1862 which was force until
rhs sny Statutes pssS S sSS
caSHs sae S Tor bribery under
o;So. a1 follows that bribery committed by municipal &
oineets 10 New-lork Brooklyn and Long Island Cl)
pGrlshaele under the special provisions OF lne
and no. pnnsha6le when Committed BY officers
class IN The other IT, the other hand
section ~ a. We have endeavOed To show, Includes nunc
pal oncer tt contention uat nevertheless the crime ana
punishment OF bribery by municipal ohccIs III tc ely o
New oik 70 sun goyerne by section o. OF he
ascribns the Legislature an intention discriminate n
the punishment o bribery committed by municipal
oihCer IN the city O New York. AMI when committed Dy
municipal ocefs IN other cities and also TIE iur iher lns
tion 10 punish tho crime when committed III Inc saI
municipalities with fa greater severity than When com
mitied by municipal officers Of the most popuous am
important city In the Union. Such legislation absurd ~
theory leads injustice 1t regulates the punishment