The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-06-06
AN INGENIOUS PLEA
Counsellor Corbin's Effort
For the Old Street and
Water Commissioners.
WANTS INDICTMENTS QUASHED
Prosecutor Winfield Opposes the
Motion Supreme Court Judges
Reserve Decision.
Special to the Jersoy Citu Nelrs.


TRENTON, June 6, 1s94.-Supreme Court
Justices Dixon, Albeit and Reed heard this
morning motion made by Counsellors Chas.
L. Corbin and Charles D. Thompson to quash
the Indictment for conspiracy found by the
Hudson county Grand Jury against Edward
Dugan. Charles Somers, John N. Madden,
William Cook and Stephen Yoe, formerly
Street and Water Commissioners of Jersey
City Mr. Corbin contended that an indict-
ment must set forth every element necessary
to constitute the crime. By statute, no
agreement TO commit crime shall be
deemed a conspiracy unless some
act in execution of such agree-
ment be done to effect the object
thereof Therefore, Counsel argued, it IS an
essential element of conspiracy to commit
a crime that such act shall have been done
in execution of the agreement and with
intent to effect its object, and as this is es-
sential to the crime it should be set forth
in the Indictment.
HIS SECOND POINT.
The second point of Mr.. Corbin's argument
waszz that the agreement set out
does not constitute an indiet-
able agreement to defraud the tine city. The
| agreement charged is not merely to cheat
the city, but to do it in specified
WAYS, namely, it was an agree
ment made by the commissioners
acting as a board to cheat. Since the board
can act only by vote of quorum, the only
way in which the defendants can agree
while acting as board IS by vote, and Mr..
Corbin contended that the members OF 4
public board cannot possibly by vote con-
spire. The corrupt agreement charged, sar-
casticaIly added Mr.. Corbin, is logically ins-
possible, and you might just as well charge
ld no
committed assault and battery. A conspir-
acy. of individual officials to control their
official action as board is un-
heard of, but when to such a
charge you add the complication that they
conspired, acting as a board your 1ndlct-
ment becomes burlesque.
NO AGREEMENT TO CHEAT.
The third point made by Mr.. Corbin was
that the acts set out in the Indictment, such
as purchasing supplies for the city at prices
! in excess of their true value by paying aal'
aries to persons who had not rendered any
service to the city; by falsely pretending to
| the city that large sums of money were due
| by the city for work and supplies, are not
shown to be in execution OF the alleged agree
nen6 between the commissioners to cheat
| the people of Jersey City.
| Fourthly, Counsel argued that neither the
| agreement nor the acts charged are shown
| to be the acts of any defendant.
1 Summing up, Mr.. Corbin said:-'We re-
pudlate altogether as unSound the doctrine
| that an Indictment for conspiracy can be
| the remedy for a purely official malfeasance,
| or that any vote which member of board
], can cast can be III execution of criminal
| conspiracy. The duty to vote implies dis
cretion to vote either way. The exertlon
| of such discretion can not be an act OF con-
| spiracy."
THE STATES ARGUMENT.
| Mr.. c. h Winfield, Prosecutor of the
Pleas, presented the argument for the State.
| He stated at the outset that motion to
quash can only be founded on some
| defect apparent on the face OF
| the Indictment. Mr.. Winfield submitted
! that the indictment sets out with sufficient
| certainty corrupt conspiracy, the object or
| that conspiracy and the means by which the
object of the conspiracy might be effected.
| The object was to cheat and defraud the
Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City, and the
Street and Water Board, being a public
body, a conspiracy to cheat it of its moneys
| is indictable. MIR. Winfield Fidiculed the
contention that the Indictment should
| be auashed because the conspiracy charged
| is shown to have been entered into by the
| defendants IN their official capacity acting
as a board. 1t was a waste Of labor, ne
| said, aud ingenuity, for the indictment IS
| not against public board, nor is 1t charged
that the conspiracy was entered into by the
defendant acting as board The pleader
charges them with cheating the city by
means of their official power. 1t was neees-
sary as deseriptio personda'lthe to set out
| in tba Indictment that they were officials.
AUTHORITIES CITED.
SIT is said, continued Mr.. Winfield. that
the Street and Water Board cannot be held
| for conspiraey to cheat the city when the OBJ
| ject of the conspiracy can be accomplished
| only by means of their official acts. Why
nota Their Office would afford the readiest,
most potent and most dangerous means to
| effect the object of such a combination"
Supporting his contentious, the Prosecutor
let loose a raft of authorities, principal
among which was that of the late English
| Judge, Sir James Stt phens, who says every
one commits the misdemeanor OF conspiracy
| who agrees with any other person to do any
act with intent to defraud the public.
| The Justices withheld their decision.