New-York tribune., 1890-04-01
UNLUCKILY THEY WERE OLD OFFENDERS
IF MARTIN. WALSH AND YOUNG HAD NOT BE
Gun THIIR PRACTICES 80 LONG AGO THEY
TOO COULD BE PUNIsHED-KEATlNG
AND MGONIGAL. HOWEVER, NAY
GET THEIR DESERTS.

The indictments for bribery against Deputy ShcriIs
Bernard F. Martin. Philip V. Walsh and Joseph Young
were practically quashed yesterday by Judge bafru
IN the Court Of oyer and Tefminer. when ne upheld
the demurrer 10 the indictments interposed by the
defendants counsel. ex->urrogate Rollins and W
Bourke Cochran. The indicted men were charged with
having received 500 from Charles &. Francklyn ln
1857 when the latter under arrest. for taking
Franckyn about town. to see his lawyer ana Tor otAeI
purposes and dividing the money among themselves,
The Code of Civil Procedure provides in section III
for Just such acts the one mentioned. The Code
SAYS sheriff or other officer shall not demand o.
receive from person arrested By him, while in his
custody a rratuity or reward upon prctencc. for
keeping the prisoner ont Of JAIL for going "4th Nm
waiting for him 10 lLd BAIL o. TO agree WIN MS
adversary or for any other purpose Ihcn section
l25 provides. as a penalty for that act, a7 follows
a sheriff other officer who wiifully Violates ans
Of TIE foregoing provisions of this title forfeit, TO the
person acgrcved treble damages. lie j. also guilty
Of misdemcanoq, and shall be punished accordingly
conviction also operate. forfeiture Of ., ONCE
Judge Barrett decided yesterday That # an acton
could be maintained against the defendants II mu't
be on the sections Of the Civil Code quoted and tiat
the acts complained Of did not constitute bribery
DistretAttorney Fellows told Tribune reporter than
the judges decision prevented any further stcp- beng
taken in prosecuting the defendants for The particular
acts complained Of in the present clsc for the reason
that tie statute OF Limitation, barred pro-crilton
or msdemcanor two ycars after the act had been
committed lie said that other charges might be
bought against the defendants which came within
the statute Of limitations, but far the present
charge were concerned the were now free from
prosecution.
We were confronted before the Grand Jury"
Mr Fellows said by tie fact that Martin and 'thc
oeputy sherifs received 500 umawfuy from Charles
IT, francklyn. This was a misdcmcanor. Judge
Jarrett has held. 1t act amounting 10
eAtoFuon, bat confronted with the fact tiat
the offence committed more than two year, before
We became aware Of 1t and before the facts "cfo
liaceq before the Grand Jury. That wa, misfortune
iOf the puUc and for the cause of Justice but a. II
has turned ont good fortune for The defendant.
Beng perfectly aware then that We were not
Ado to ask for an Indictment for mlSdcncanOr
because the statute OF Limitations would interfere. so
,oeLevcd II might come within the provisions Of the
h~ AGAINST bribery. Indictments for bribery were
therefore found. The court holds that tho act or acte
oi these men deputy sheriff, constituted nls.
ce'le2nOr aud not bribery. The law ,ais that for
mlsdemcanOr committed two years before the Grand
jury snail not e.cn make an nvcstigaion. The
hatc o. the states j. thrown over the offence
Mr. Fellows added that the decision would not pre-
vent the trial Of the Of Deputy sheriff NcGOnSal
under Judge Barrctt's decision the charge Of bribery
against tie defendants must be abandoned and they
mst be arraigned for mi,dcmcaTOrs only. The statute
Oi Limitations will not interfere in the o.
sc1Ongal and Ecatin2. The acts which led 20 th'
chaFges against them committed ONLY few weeks
40. The dsmis al Of the Indictment discharges tho
Dail given by Martin, Walsh and Young.