New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-01-12
MKANE MUST PLEAD.
THE MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICT-
MENTs AGAINST HIM DENIED.
HIS ASSOCIATES IN THE ELECTION FRAUDS


HIS ASSOCIATES IN THE ELECTION FRAUDS
TO SEE THE GRAND JURY MINUTES.
Another step was gained yesterday in the pro-
ceedings against John Y. McKane and his fell
lows of the town Of Gravesend who are under
Indictment FOR various offences committed on and
before Election Day to carry out the fraudulent
voting schemes for which they are to answer.
Judge Bartlett denied the motions to quash the
indictments and to give a copy Of the minutes
Of the proceedings before the Grand Jury to the
defendants He announced that he would con-
slider the points in the order in which they were
presented.
He first took up the question of allowing an
insnection of the minutes to support the motion
to quash the indictments against fourteen OF the
defendants on the ground Of insufficient evil
dence In support of this allegation the only
avcrment of fact was he said. that the evidence
was the same as that given in the proceedings
against McKane and others for contempt OF
Court. which it was alleged was insufficient to
sustain the indictments. If the evidence was as
weak against the defendants as suggested and
no other witnesses were called, there would be
some basis for the motion to quash.
EFFECT OF MR. sHEPARD's AFFIDAVIT
But the affidavit OF Mr. Shepard showed that
other witnesses were called. and 1t was not TO
be inferred that their testimony did not suffice
TO make out the prma facie case necessary TO
warrant an indictment. Judge Bartlett went on
to say:
Before an inspection of the minutes should
be permitted as the basis OF a motion to quash
on the ground that the evidence was insufficient,
there should oe laid before the Court III the
form OF andavits. some facts much stronger
than any which appear I'm these cases 1usuiyihB
tho inference that there really was no legal evi-
dence To support the charge. Such motions can
be granted only in clear cases. unless we are 10
change our whole system Of criminal procedure.
and by giving every indicted defendant view ol
tho minutes Of the Grand Jury countenance
the practice. which would soon arise, OF begin
ming every criminal case OF any Importance
with a preliminary trial as TO the adequacy OF %,
the proof upon which the indictment was iounu.
ON the second point in regard TO the presence
Of Assistant Dlstrict-Attorncy shepard ana the
stenoCrapher Fish. before the Grand jury II
was clear that the former had right 10 De
there The latter had been duly ana regularly
appointcI IT time when the office was vacant.
All the requirements in his case were met save
that he was not sworn 10 secrecy But this omls-
sion was not fatal as he was an official de facto.
on the third point If tho concurrent existence
Of two Grand Juries. Judge Bartlett said that'
nroporlv construed. the law permitted not only
two but three Grand Juries AZ once The TX
traordinary Court OF oyer and Terininer had the
right 90 impancl Grand jury and u could ma
indictments. The motion t. quash because IN
dicimcnts for conspiracy and Misconduct aS
registry officers were merged. was denied. as this
objection could properly be presented on de-
fnilrrcr: and the same was true in regard To tAe
indictments against McKanc for contempt,
of,rr.ssion and assault In the second degree.
IAN the motions are denied. and the defend
ants must plead" judge Bartlett said in con-
ciu-iou.
pEMURRERs or THE DEFENDANTS.
Assistant Dstrct-Attorney Shepard moved
that the defendants appear. But their counsel
intorposcd dcinurrers On the ground Of fatal
defects IN the indictments" The grounds OF de
mgffer wc.e that there was no local jurisdic-
ton over the alleged crimes: that the indict-
rnents DID not contain plain and concise state
mont = tho crimes as provided 10y the code;
that the Indictments were for more than one
crime and thai the facts related IN the lndIct-
rnenis did not constitute n crime.
Foster l. Bachus argued for the defendant
Jamison. indicted for perjury that the ludlct-
mcnts did not aogc that the defendant wlliuily
or fol,uiously swcrr to any complaint before "A
riacistratc Fx-JudCc Troy argued the de-
tnurrors FOR the other defendants. alleging that
the Indictments were lnvalidated 10y the defects
The Indictments for conspiracy did not alleg'
overt acts I'm pursuance of conspiracy. T." said
General Tracy replied for the prcsccution
and uI held the validity Of the indictments on all
the points set forth IN the demurrers. lie was
followed by T.. NJ. Shepard. The hearing was ad-
journcd until to-day while the argument was
In progress