The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-07-10

is toned with DuffyS Malt WhlSKey.
Heinz the sum of $500. Krautler the sum
There is no such law as set forth in
the second count; that is. there is no
law authorizing the printing in German
NO OVERT ACT.
''In the second place there is no overt
act set ont to show that there was any
pervers.on or obstruction of justice and
the due administration of the laws of
this State. The count is also defective
because it charges the overt acts done
in the previous count, without contain
ing in itself any direct charge of a con-
sp.raey; This is Illegal. Therefore re.
SAMUEL KALiscH's CONTENTION,
Samuel Kalisch next spoke: He said
as to their position, They claimed thai
the Prosecutor had unnecessarily set
out in the Indictment the means by
which the CONSPIRACY charged was tb ef,
no law existed under which the cheat
could have been made. The Prosecutor
had stated himself out of court. The
ton of the existence of a law and sup
plements that did not in fact exist, 7
was like the defendant who was indicted
have been sufficient to have charged him
with stealing a horse, but the Indictment
charged a black horse. AS the animal
the defendant should be acquitted.
Another point was that the cheat in
this case could only have operated on
the Treasury, and the Indictment should
PENDANT were done with intent to cheat
the State Treasurer" The officer
was answerable for all waste
mifted the Treasurer. must make 1t
good. He called attention to the distInc-
ton between money intercepted on It's
stracted from the treasury. In the first
case the indictment could probably read
with intent to defraud the State" but
not so in the latter.
word person" answer for the state"
h State did not come within the des-
cription set out in the conspiracy act.
sole custodian of its funds, and made
him responsible. a conspiracy to draw
on the treasury affects the Treasurer and
Mr.. Kalisch referred to the first mo-
ton to ouash.. and said it had been
abandoned. and the Court ordered that
THE STATE NEITHER MALE OR
FEMALE.
Woodbury. D. Holt, for the prosecution,
followed. He l.. sam ne must compliment n
ner in which they had presented their
arguments. He must offer his condo
lences to the State however, for it was
mana n%onentity. He had e under
stood why the State could be cheated
with such impunity. but he now, saw:
cried the speaker. whatever you can
DO in the way Of filling your Golfers,
wade in: you are stealing from neither
man nor corporation; wade in"
He said a careful reading of the law
n the Indictment was sufficient. 1t
was not necessary in al Indictment to
set out the means
did aRpt'" interrupted Mr. Kaliseh' you
"And you say" replied Mr.. Holt, that
because we did not set out enough evil
dence to convict. the defendant ought to
be discharged2'
Mr.. Kalisch was about TO reply, but
Mr. BUCHANAN anticipated him.
out enough to be quashed, the Indictment
ought to be quashed." Captain Holt the
read the. Indictment very impressively
P Pr 81 iaE5 0ea sT6cK RRNo sse sXs R}sG.
MENT.
He was followed by Prosecutor Stock
ton, who insisted that the reports had
that it was therefore necessary to imply
warrant of law. This may not
mean a statute, or even a joint resolu-
Attorney General. If there was any
authority of law whatever by which the
Comptroller advertised and awarded
vi IL Oald pC d oulllCIGII
warrant as to the first count.
As to the second count. the Prosecutor
said the Indictment stood entirely free
from the objections made by all the
counsel. He was surprised at the -argu-
ment of Mr.. Kalisch, whom he had sup
posed to be one of the best criminal law
yers in the State, to the effect that a
..person" could not mean the State.
Section 8 of the Criminal Procedure
provided that when any word i'm
porting the singular number or mascu-
line gender is used the same shall be
understood to include several persons as
males, and bodies corporate as we'll as
individuals.
The Prosecutor said he could not put
his finger on the law authorizing this
reasonable to suppose if SEE, 600 a
had been paid for this kind of
work, there was authority for it. At
any rate no court could afford to pre-
The presumption was the other way.
and there was no doubt some warrant.
What difference did it make whether
there was a law or not? Did tile in
all. but I had no authority to take any?"'
1t was simply a statement, "I took all
you said and more, too; but I hadn't a
right to take any. I ought not TO be
than the one you charged me
The means taken in the indictment must
be taken TO be all the means.
Prosecutor Stockton said he had been
by surprise by the turn of affairs,
and asked to have permission to pit in
a brief. This was granted, and the court
said the point would be decided within
a week after the brief was in.
The case was set for trial or. the oath
inst. in case the ruling was adverse to
defendant.