The San Francisco call., 1896-04-08
Judge Slack Sustains His De.
murrer to the In.
dictment.
THE DOCUMENT DEFECTIVE.
No Charges of Specific Violations of
the Law-Referre Back to
the Grand Jury.

The demurrer to the indictment against
Thomas Ashworth, (which has been hang
ing fire before the Superior Court for so
long, has been sustained, and to avoid fur
ther miscarriage of justice Judge Slack
has ordered the case referred to the present
Grand Jury for further investigation.
The indictment was filed on January "a,
1895. 1t charged that Thomas Ashworth,
the Superintendent of Streets, "willfully
and knowingly accepted street work done
on the public streets of said City and
County. and has recommended the accept
ance Of and has issued assessments for the
same. knowing the said work not to be
fully performed according to the speciffca-
tions for said work" Then followed de-
scriptions of defective pavements on
Laguna street, between Oak and Fell; on
the crossing of Clay and Spruce; on Lyon,
between Washington and Jackson on
Scott, between Green and Union; Pine,
between Webster and Fillmore; and La
q sidewalk on Valencia, between Thir-
teenth and Fourteenth: and sewer on
Chestnut between Larkin and Polk.
The defendant demurred to the accuse
tions against him on the grounds that
there Were not sufficient facts stated and
that the indictment was not direct and
certain as to the particular rcumstances
of the offenses charged.
In sustaining the demurrer Judge Slack
says:
The offense for the conviction of which any
of the designated district, county, township or
municipal officials may be removed from
office is any willful or corrupt misconduct in
office. The misconduct may be either willfuf
OF corrupt. 1t need not necessarily be corrupt
misconduct, or, in other words, conduct
amounting to q wrongful design to acquire or
canse some pecuniary or other advantage to
the officer or to some other person. II not cor
rupt the misconduct must be willful; but "will-
ful' in this sense means not simply a purpose
or willingness to do an act which the officer
he should DO, but a purpose on the part OF the
officer to do or omit the act from bad motives,
with knowledge that it was his duty to do or
to omit it. Mere knowledge, furthermore, on
to omit an act does not amount to Willfulness
if the act be omitted or done by him, for his
conduct may be wanting in wrongful purpose,
or be simply negligent.
do or to omit the act complained OF in order to
be guilty of misconduct, and this should be
disclosed by the accusation.
The accusation, If it does not charge corrupt
misconduct in office must charge Wl.lful mis-
conduct. in the sense in which that term is
above interpreted. The offense cons tituting
the misconduct, must besides, be stated in
ordinary and concise language, and with
directness and certainty with regard to its
particular circumstances.
In counts and II, however, there is no allega-
tiOn that the defendant accepted any street
work; in none of the counts is it alleged that
the defendant issued assessments for street
work and in none of them is there any allega-
ton that the defendant did the acts with
which he is charged "willfully" and in counts
VII and VIII he is not even charged with hav.