The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-11-23
WrIIrss DEwUnnrn DrsALEorrD.
Appellate Division Holds the Indictments
Against willis and PhiiIpa Good. ,ft

H-N-
Appellate Division Holds the Indictment
Against willis and Philips Good. -
The Appellate Division Of the Supreme Court
In Brooklyn yesterday reversed the decision OF
Justice Hirsohberg. who sustained a demurrer
interposed by former City Works Commits
sioner Theodore B. Willis and former Police
Commissioner William Z. Philips TO indIct-
ments charging them with conspiracy. The
Appellate Division holds that the indictments
are good and sufficient. The appeal was argued
on behalf Of the people by District Attorney
Josiah T. Marean. Justice Willard Bartlett
wrote the opinion. In which he says:
I'm the court below the indictment has been
condemned as. defective because the pleader
has not set out what was the public duty Of tho
defendant Willis in tho premises. andhas NOT
pointed out the violation thereof which the rat-
ties had In contamination. . I" 1t seems TO us
that this conclusion is based a miscon-
ception OF the rules of criminal pleading As ab-
piled to the crime OF conspiracy. In the nature
OF thingst the charge cannot DO made any moro
definite than was the actual agreement Of tho
conspirators. The real question is whether
such agreement. as Ia stated In the Indictment,
no matter how Indefinite It was and no matter
how general In It's forms. constitutes a crimi-
nal eonspiracy under the statute. y;
ont Ne ie d liz net 9sd sss wSSt NV was duties hsSe which 70 1s ses,
imposed Hnf 81 ip By ia@'S upon The O." de deflSs E" Wins E. as.
Commlssioner OF. City Works The charter OF
the city Of Brooklyn. which prescribed the du.
ties Of that ofacer.. was a public, statute. of
which the courts OF this State were to take
judicial notice, without formal allegation or
proof. The alleged conspiracy was not an
agreement. to neglect or violate any particular,
one. OF these duties. but such of them as should
thereafter seem to the conspirators to be eifec-
tive in carrying out their object. II these
conspiracy could. not truthfully be charged
otherwise than II lie charged in the Indictment;
so that the discussion brings us down to the
question upon which this branch OF the case
turns. and that 10 whether an agreement be-
tween q public officer and O. private person
which In terms provides that the public officer
shall wilfully neglect and violate any duty en-
Joined upon him by law, the neglect and vio-
lation Of which shall appear to both parties to
be effective to aid the private person IN obtain
ing money without specifying what that duty
OF this State. II IL. is we think such a con-
spiracy Is suf1ciently charged in this indict-
ment. II 1t is not. OF course. the Indictment
We cannot doubt that such a compact Is a
crime. 10 hold otherwise would be to adcpt q
rule which would free all conspirators from
criminal liability IL they only took care to make
their agreement sufficiently general in it's
terms. The Judgment should be reversed and
a Judgment entered disallowing the demurrer."
All the justices .co1eurred In the %opinioEn;
carry the case to the Court Of Appeals, Dis
trict Attorney Marean. will become a Supreme
Court Justice on, Jan. L and viii not. have
charge OF the trials against Willis and Philips.
as the cases cannot be prepared for trial in
December. ..,s