The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-10-13
F-
WH|TEWASHED BY BLAIR
He Quashes the Indict-
ments Against the
Freeholders.
HAD i RIGHT TO PAY OLD CLAIMS
Full Text Of the Decision
Which Allowed the Indie
ted Men to Go Free.
HAD 4 RIGHT TO PAY OLD CLAIMS

his morning. on The motion to quasn tns
Indictment against the Board OF Free
holders. for violating the law by exceed
ing their appropriations for the years
1851. He said that the indictment was
found by the Grand Jury at the Decem-
Der term, last year, and s~uosequehtls q
motion was made 10 quash. The Cour'
had given the matter careful CONSUMERS
tion and had come to the conclusion lhat
the acts charged do not constitute q
criminal act. The motion to quash was
therefore granted. Lawyer Flavel MeGee
made the argument for the defendants.
This is the text of Judge Blair's decision
The BOARD Of Freeholders, now under
Indictment. went into Office on the nrst
MONDAY of December, A. D.. 1897.
IN the sixth day Of January, A. D. 1898
the Board passed the following resoiu-
rfon:-
Resolved, That warrants be and are
hereby ordered drawn on the County Col
lector, ard signed by the Director ana
Clerk of this Board in payTnenl OF the
following claims as reported correct py
The sub-committe on schedules, hereto
attached (here follows q hist oil inolV-
uaI claims a-ggregating the sum OF $780,
! 1890.
The said Board did also at a meeting
held on the third day of February, A. u.
1898. vote and adopt the following resolu-
tion:-
sResolved, That warrants be and are
hereby ordered drawn Or the County Col
flector. and signed by the Director and
Clerk of this Board, in payment OF the
following claims as reported correct ny
the subcommittee on schedule hereto
annexed" etc. (lere follows a list OF M
dividual claims amounting in all to the
sum of $2i, 455.a5).
The Grand Jury of this county, at the
September term last, found the present
Indictment against the Board of Chosen
Treeholders. for passing these resolutions,
as being in violation of Section 20, OF the
"Act for the Punishment of Crimes,
General Statutes. page l0S3-
The statute alleged TO have been vio-
lated, reads as follows
POI. Sec..1 That if any board of chosen
freeholders, or any township committee,
or any Board of Aldermen or common
councilmeI, or any board of education,
or any board of commissioners OF any
county, township, city, town or borough
in this State, or any committee OF mem
Der of amy such board or commission.
shall disburse, order or vote for the dis
bursement of public moneys, in excess OF
the appropriation respectively. 70 any
such board or committee, or snaft INCUR
obligations in excess of the Incorporation
and limit of expenditure provided by lay
for the purposes respectively of any .suoh
board. or committee, the members there
of, and each members thereof. thus dis
bursting, ordering or voting for the dis
bursement and expenditure of pubic
moneys, or thus mourning Obligations IN
excess of the amount appropriated, ana
limit of expenditure, as now or hereafter
appropriated and limited by law. snail be
severally deemed guilty of malIeasance
in office, and on being thereof conVlcteo
shall be punished by fine not exceeding
one thousand dollars. or Imprisonment az
hard labor for any term not exceeding
three years or both, at the discretion OF
the Court.
The FIRST count of the indictment sets
forth the names of the members. of the
previous Board of Chosen Freeholders, its
action as shown by The reso5ut Isae pave assa
set out. and alleges that by sucn ac-
tions the present Board did incur obliga,-
tons, and the members thereof ala eaen
unlawfully vote for the incurTing OF oDll-
cations of the Board in excess OF the
appropriations and limit of expenditure
for the fiscal year 1~S96-1S9l:
The other counts of the Indictment set
forth the names of the members OF the
present Board and its acts touching the
passage of the resolutions of January b
and February 3, 1898.
iously formulated, must fall, unless the
facts upon which Itrestsare in themselves
sufficient to support a criminal allegatlon.
IN order to sustain the Indictment at
all on the theory upon which 1t is formed,
the alleged acts of. the defendants must
have resulted in the dishurstng o. puple
monies, or mourning obligations in excess
OF the limit of expenditure for the nsedl
year, 1Ss64lS9T..
The allegations that the sunas Of s33, TeS Sc
and $27,4 81 were paid out Of the appfo..
priation of 1878 in excess Of the limit OF
expenditure Of 1861. and these the only
facts upon which the Indictment is based,
dc not in the opinien Of the Court aHese
a crime under the statute in question.
These facts, rs here presented, RAISE on
~ the question of the legality o. paying
out the monies of one year the deots Of
a preceding year.
# at the time OF fixing the appropria-
ton for the fiscal year 1878 it was known
that claims were then outstanding and
unpaid. or would be at the end OF the
year. in excess of the appropriation Tor
the year 1861. and provision was made
for their paymen Outeof the appropriation
then DULY. 1890 fixed for 1878, the act
of appropriation world have been proper,
and the payment-after December /, 1897,
would have been legal
If from any source the Board had on
the sixth day of January. and the third
day of February, 1898. money in its hands
unappropriafed, it had a perfect right to
use it in the payment of any unpaid le-
Ultimate claims against the couHEy, no
matter when such debts had been in
CURED.
If these claims amounting to se1 254-4S
were incurred after December ], 1897. they
were properly paid out%of the money APP
propriated for the fiscal year lssl-1sss: if
they were incurred prior to the beginning
of the fiscal year 1875 they then could
be legally paid by the present board 4
the appropriations of that year. 1897 1895.
HQRE1Cu iiitli.. Vi II Liit DAt
In hand belonging to it from the preced-
ing Board. or otherwise to pay with
There is nothing to show that the pres
emit Board was not provided with money
in the appropriation of 1913 to pay these
claims. nor that the Board did not On the
sixth day of January. and third day of
February, 1895. have money In hand out
sid of the appropriation for that year
sufficient to pay these claims.
The counts wherein 1t is alleged that the
defendants by paying the sums named in
the resolutions of Januar% sixth and Feb
ruarS 3, 1898. were guilty under the stat
ute. of mourning obligations in excess of
the appropriation for the fiscal year
1861. cannet be sustained.
The word obligation" as used in The
statute. imports a debt, or undertaking
involving the ayInen of money in the
future. The indictment shows that the
Collector paid these Sums of money at
once. under the resolution of this Board.
There were no obligations incurred: the
means of payment appear to have been In
the County Treasury. in other words. in
hand. to use the words OF the late Chief
Justice in the Halstead case. IF the
money was there and una~ppropriated, the
Board had a right TO use it in payin
these claims.
A Board cannot. in any legal sense.
after a fiscal year has expired. incur OBJ
legations in excess of the appropriation
for such fiscal year.
The crime defined ilt the statute con-
sists in disbursing public moneys. or IN
curing obligations during any fiscal year
Of expenditure for that specific year. The
fact Of the Board paying out moneys dur
irg The year 1878. TO satisfy claims In
Cured In 1867. is uotSin violation or the