The evening world., 1890-03-28
Field Day In the Crusade Against
ShrlsIalty Corruption.
and Son, Mseks. Barney
Martin and Others at Bar.
Flack Appeals for n New Trial and
Decision Is Reserved.

This was field day for the prosecutors OF
the Sheriff, his assistants and friends at
his Office.
Justice Barrett, sitting in the Court Of
Oyer and Terminer. In the very room
where William NJ. Tweed met his Water
loo sixteen years ago; the very
room where Jacob Sharp and John
O'Neill were convicted Of the Broadway
Railroad Doodle iniquity, surveyed such an
audience OF lawyers and distinguished de-
PENDANTS az il not often gathered together.
There were sheriff Flack. William l.. Flack
and Joseph, heeks awaiting k%entcnce i2r
theig conspiracy to divorce Mrs. Mary Il.
Flack without her knowledRei p.r
There were ex-Judges William Fullerton
and Horace Russell. Frank Carpenter and
John II. Bird, counsel for three royal con-
There we're Flack's official attorney, Mr..
Timiu, orntorical William. 5ourke Cock
ran, ex-Snrrogate Dan Rollins and the
Grady. prepared. to. fight the legality OF two
indictmertS for bribery, against Barney, "
Martin, Philip v. Walsh and Jo,eph A..
Ioung, deputy sheriffs, who we're also pres
Martin. Walsh and Young were arraigned
mn the second. OF their indictments, and
Col. Fellows asked for a ~postponement of
the argument on tho demurrer, on the
ground that q new indictment had been
Mr.. Cochran protested that this indict-
nient was identical with the first one, except
Tor y few changes OF phraSeology. ana that
the District Attorney, having agreed u open
court to argue the demurrer to-day, the de-
Tense insisted OH going on.
MIR: Rollins talked to the same effect, but
Col. Fellows. insisted on q delay till Monday
morning to hunt up authorities and prepare
MIR. Cochran insisted on going on, but
Justice Barrett felt bound TO accept Col.
H. 49, a. NLaN H. Aa1Al san.a
AVID adjourned the hearing to Monday next
at 10. 30 o'clock.
Dilworth Choatc, backed by the eloquent
Frederic H.. Coudert, appeared with his
answer to the order to show cause why he
should not be- punished for contempt OF
court y corceaiing himssif IN The iurv-room
Mr.. Coudert read al affidavit, by Mr..
Choate. in which the reporter called atten-
ton to the fact that he had already been
once arrairned before the Court and dis
charged with a reprimand for this same Of
fense, and also that, iii fact, he had commit
ted no contempt
Mr.. Coudert said he did not know what
the offense was that was charged to DO in
contempt OF court.
II contend. F" said Mr.. Coudert, that II
swoIn and properly discharged or punished,
he cannot again be arraigned or charged or
punished Tor tho same oifensc."
At the conclusion of n long argument be-
tween counsel Justice Barrett said he would
consider the questions involved and put his
findings in writing. to be read on Monday
MORNING.
Justice Barrett next listened to the argu-
ments of counsel on the motion for a new
trial made 10y Horace Russell and John III.
Bird In behalf OF ex-SlIeriff James. A. Flack.
William l.. Flack and Joseph Meeks.
III ex-Sherif was pale Nnd haggard,
While JOSIAH Meeks's usually Jolly face VIVA
drawn aud swollen about the eyes. There
was no buoyancy among the defendants.
Ex-SurroGate Daniel H.. Rollins had been
injected into the case AZ counsel for the de-
PENDANTS.
Ex-Judge Russell asked for q new trial be-
cause the verdict was contrary to law and
contrary to the eyidence; the Court had ex-
cceled his duty in. mis- charge to the inry,
and the jury had been interfered with and
intrudsd upon while celebrating.
The Cole OF Civil Procedure provides
that whom n verdict is arrived at by other
than a fair expression of opinion ON the
part Of the iurnr., Haid Judge Russell.
This section has never been construed
by the courts of this State, but u similar law
has been construed in Kansas. Indiana and
Michigan. And III cases where there had
been an intruder in the iury-ruom,
in one case O judge. i'll another II
bailif, aud in an other a third person,
all outsider. In all of these cases
a new trial was granted. and the Court
decided that il made no difference what was
the eject of, the presence OF the Intruder.
and in one case IL was shown that tn. in
trudor had not said one word but had sat
idly in the delibcration room, a listener
simply"