New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-07-28
ME DECISION AFFIRMED"
lotion AND SENTENCE OF M'KANE
UPHELD

90 THE GENERAL TERN or THE
pS'' ,,rr COURT IN BRooKLYN-wHAT
THE JUDGES SAY.
Tern, Of the Supreme Court in Brook
The sad down decision yesterday afhr'ning
IN nam, Of conviction ana sentence TO SIX
he ju's'.u,r,sonment Of John y. Mckane FOR EEL
years % .on,ecton with the Gravesend election
eSY " s, fall The opinion was written by Judge
irsuo' snd conctrrcd in by Judges Brown ana
lSno The opinion covered sixty Vpe"r'''e"
WS'r THO various exceptions taken by McNaneS
pages .he evidence presented at the trial were
counsel 10 ~, none Of the objections Is held to be
ecnsda', On the point raised by the defence
well iO'H rrror could convene a Court of oyer
thai !" - ond not term Of oyer and TerInlnei'
AID Ten" IDS that this Is merely play upon
The wv" the fact remains that the Grand jury
s'r'S ,o,nd the Indictment against Mchane. III
rn s .,e objection that the indictment on which
Fss,,o,t was tried contained three Scp"'"'e
y wv" one of which was a crime HseH' anu
esh's' .h,es indictments should have been drawn
$'i lives the right to group allied crimes an"
- "a select two of such counts ana apa"oo"
y S'-s In regard TO the admission OF eV'ue'V''
be ihnu' a conspiracy TO conceal the registry
" sisted then the acts ana ue'ld'""o'~ " NY
p<s eA's' aere admissible in evidence. Fhr RUE
a3i NV ,tllv enforced that justice would DC
70 ~ rs the opinion In the Consideration Oh
nSaf'' tho circumstances tending 10 prove
TX IT, must be taken into Considerations anu
Ha'f ,ha things 10 be considered Sho"'1 ''0
'n0"e .bch would prompt conspiracy anu ''e
n9' ~ gained by 1t; the means an" "O'"'S ~
s'' !" ,orsniracy, tending To sho" '"e Po"o' "a
i'" ,,.odant as leading ofhcehoder III inc TOW "
ns ''.'as.ns and his opportunity 10 carr! o"'
y lJrdNrT'-'-' lit,,e.- ~ 81
conspiracy. all the poiiihs-p'"'eS VIZ !"
sDeh " mn II was also important TO show that
=. caypor wanted TO see me iVs'9o' ,r,,,
NJ oA'~ - he gained by Withholding them from
hin ~ .oe,i,,ony to the conspiracy
In 'nS 80 The remarkable coincidence IN
coui' 0e - names on the voting lists gave IN
ne s.+,,o,oe Of fabrication and the lists sho"ed
a'n~' ,oc,ior inspectors were co-conspra'o's
ma' ". between JcKane and r. NJ Trout
4"' 49,. ,s,enhone vas $50 not TO De ruieu Out %
" '' 90 nrovo IT, conspiracy anu sno"eu '''
emu Marty TO the effort 70 conceal the
ME- ' us,s The objection that Mchahe was no'
''s' oflcer was fully covered 10y 9eC''o" Nv
-. penal Code which makes any one "'o
-.od abets the commission OF CRIME ~ 'P''
a''s anu - Rod a reasonable doubt on III" evil
a,.. ~ the power Of Mckane 10 io''' "''o ~
eei'e =. ,roo, ne would have been acquiitel. Inc
he cO"sp" 49, ar, and his means and ability to
no''e o' - ,.-cther with his opportunity 10
c,mnlt the crime 'oo'''N
y p. we're fully shown.
y. .,a,rg the opinion the judges say
IN s"''.e ,,.ssas were called by the defendant 10
80, 80 HE good reputation. on cross 'Nd""'
W. 49, peonle were permitted to ask 'n''" d" -
-" .a,u,ation in connection with 'er'"l" S''''
,.,sors involving a questionable use % "'9 i' -
"a ,h,s was permissible The defendant Id, MS
...anc.d evidence Of general estluia'o" '""' ~
..,n,o,,on was good, the People were '''
49,, "a show. upon cross-eXamiha'oH' """'
was IN respect to important particulars ''' ,n."'
90 u,,h,n a reasonable range OF 'ne ~, so,,. ~
sycsd hv the defendant. II may ne nm rSono1 ,bs
vuVeu osv,,c,Iars thus introduced sir"hsth'n'u ~
sasa NJ the People in respect 10 IN" - ~. n,'rs
"a neuance of the defendant ainohS M -,
ana hnSei. ~, aIeence Of objections TO the rlFht
~ determination we cannot ilhu tt.p' ~.
INK reversal from the fact tha' my 'haracto~
have touched rot only the dei"hlaI'' no., him
h also the PROBABILITY Of the charge against MN
To hold this 10 be error would be 20 InnaT " rc,
!endant whose case is despera'e - 'f'
IN which 10 ensnare the People 49,, o,orc,
"rafsrdant uresses some objection - the 'TdiEr
. ~ 80 II is doubtful whether there are any
.yca,tione Written requests TO charge when pre-
sepsed by counsel were passed upon ny thf -
before making the main charge Two -. ~, -,
,rere then taken Objection is especially inade 10
the following portion OF the chaFge m r.
spect to testimony Of NJ MayeT' . alrsa- ~
wtbe effect that in his interview with the defend
the latter said in effect that he did give TO the
charge OF the Town nan OIQer~ NJ -
Inv any person 10 have copy Of the registry hst
rahout an order from himself Now. II the DEFEND,
rt did really acknowledge giving directlon OF
his kind that admission. in connection with oth"r
circumstances would tend TO sustain the inference
that al that time he already possessed control over
he registry lists, II not actual CUSTODY OF thrih
Il NAV be said 10 be ample evidence that did mus
tend 70 sustain some affirmative or negative a'hls-
son
Each admission implies so much. II was not
error Of the Judge 20 say OF the testimony ~
question He did not say how nearly II t"ndel II
he had undertaken 10 say that. II would nave p""it
dangerously encrOaching on the province 6"
the jury. Elsewhere the court brought out me as
tneion that while ii light be light TO the eVl1encc
tending 10 establish some facts In the case. IL was
FOR the jury 10 determine whether they believed H.
and II 50. whether i did establish II. we may
safely assume we think. that at the TINE this dis-
treton was clearly understood.
Instructions given by the court as que 10 me
o.iendant in regard the posting and accesslbiiiy
o. The registry list and copies seemed 20 be faFOT-
aoe 70 the inspectors 20 the extreme limit OF per
Missile nberaiy. The criticism Of other portions
o. Inc charge DO not seem 10 us to require spec al
Mention Finally the defendant contends that the
verdict Is against the evidence.
In. foregoing is in the main confined 70 the
!hoant presses upon our attention. as seemed 10
worthy OF written mention. This examination
s.veo 70 develop 10 some extent the nature OF the
.es We DO not think II necessary TO undertake
ae saolonal labor 10 quote and arrange IN order
w testimony given. 10 clear presentation OF the
saoN case II Will suffice 70 say that We nav" eN-
erAs A. .s %