New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-03-08
MUST STAND TRIAL.
WILLIS AND PHILIPS HELD IT.
PROPERLY INDICTED
COURT OF APPEALS AFTlRMs The 'r'D'
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE
DIVISION

DIVISION.
A,bsnv March THE Court OF Appea' nc u
6rrned the order In the appeal oil T1eo,,,vr
v,u,s Commissioner OF city WORKS OF 49,
and william f. Philips from ue0Is'S n,.orr,,,,ns
,nnerlate Division Of the Supreme court oNol a.
49, decis,on OF Justice Hirschberg sustain'ns U
,ourrer 10 the indictment against 'ne" '
sn,-acv and they must stand trial .-. "a
P.' rI,rschherg condemned the indictment as
sS.oo,,va because It did not set forth wha' wa
-, ,,,,. dutv OF Commissioner Wills All" ~"
No, no,nt out the violation OF ths' guy a.
- "a phn,ns had in contemplation when theS e.,.
,red into their alleged conspiracy 10 get '''
from contractors ossorv 70
Justice Bartlett held that IL was u"i' 80
act forth these things The BroohSn .,snor,s
which prescribed the City WORKS w. courts
duties WAS a public statute. OF winch VI" 1,ho
80. % take judicial notice without proof -
consn,racy was not agreement 10 NiU'" ., -.
particular one of these duties. pu' sucn "a ~
sboud stand in the way OF the conspii 80
,ostion was whether agreement 49,.
n,hlic officer and private person P'0Nt1 >. en-
~ oecsr should violate his duties IN orue' /" |
.n,a tho other 10 obtain money without sps
ing what duty TO be violated WAS -
oonsniracy The Court decided INA, SUI" o.n,ns
va, wss crime From this Wits ana NM
appealed and the Court Of Appears ann
ois,on Of the court below ,.. ~,
The on,nion Affirming the order was wiz, -,
Judge O'Brien and Judges Parker cray ~,
and Haieht concur A dissenting opiion - 80
ten by Judge Bartlett. in when 'uoSe ''
o,p-,a, saws.
~, r;nctnal II not the only question nVoNeo
- he snpeal is whether the ihulcs Sire Dre-
criminal oenGs wi59n and '9 PSI Of the code Of Grim
inal Procedure he eohtrnt oanfs is that it does
oi and various authorities have been S,eo beTved
pert Of that contention ted opsinated in juris
ACTIONS where the strict rules OF me or Al
WIN iespvs elections where the more liDeral TUT
enacted BY in this STATE was no sffcient
Al ,n inform the defendant Of the nature
OF the accusation against nm The record may be
ssdmpitted as a bsr TO second prosecuuo" io' VIZ
same on n necessary TO the particulars or me
narticujar statute which the ComnlsslouHn ,ies are
T., =, ,oIafe or neglect inasmuch as me uu,uI ie
70 Nlriibed nv the charter Of the city, WIl.h 80
nuhTc statute OF which me CouIs ~ the con-
judcia! nou sts,ed in terms sufficiently clear ana
snec,fc 10 enable the defendaits " =, ,yoi,d he
,yal and the Judgment rendered upon 30 mas
a. =" another trial upon the same chatSe s,.3
much as the indictment Woulo noo u" o'ert acts in
Srtberance Of the conspiracy i mus ioow mast
The general charge ana me sperIC6 ~ is Sficut 10
he read together and when so reau tf3oientlv ap-
oe 10y IN attendants are not suHclehI,y ,ara
nrised Of the charge to enaole '"e'" "
tne nce follows that IN this case the defeno" ms
be eOD ns6ne su g to establish 70 The
pe.,.,sc,ion OF the jury one or more OF ~ on
oh
nrved are stated in the indictment VIZ of the
eeis,,r,isTs Of time and place the hdhH Ia 20 nv,
paI.roc,or upon whom tribute was 10 Ue u not,,re
~ aons nira fors and even the purpose - 90 Tho
We coIrtract which he was about 10 Oh ~
on we nr enter into with the ConTnlssloie ..een
St;k,nL will deny that aeIeeihsHs I'rser'an.
III oHcer having charge OF me ul svui -orls
pupE ,Sn roonev in a great city Tor puDlc W.
OF pun TITO an agreement with prlNdte pc J,
WHY aNect that ne will violate the Jaw en- bIcb
to ~ 10 interpose the legal ~
OF Sean nlaced in his hands Tor me pIo,ebIo bic
nave Ueea The contractors In order 70 eiapIe lrs
70 lpNy
W 10 icted for conspiracy 10 perEHcL a. ba
may Vo ~ ave administration OF law IHdt ~ ~
atsa offence charged IN the inulclnssil. s,racv
When the general charge ol .S roust
Iors ~ oyert acts are read together as i.ty 80
gnu ~ charge in substance Is that the - 80 on
o. anIred 10 levy tribute upon perS,,ls 700
cOhSP aontrecfs with the city for me PEI i -
ti ,Hic work or the furnishing OF i i~eoifc
~ nurnose and since one or more VI nv ooinle n
tnat Iuags6 must be established ny m fYNPrIa -
20 secure conviction, II Is P, saat -
Cs enc attendants Informed WIN 49, CON-
tha' w. contractor and the parucuIsI III
1,n.,,on with respect 10 the su1cieIvy "a ~ he
quest, has been very fully discu57SS'tu, III 10
olc, heow The learned Appellate Dlh Ne ia imajc,
couIrs Ute clearly as We THINK thdt w 49,. -
sho q, not omen to the objections nlane 20 on
ne me- va a. is sufficiently clear ana sls'i"0 ~ |
~, 80 attendants prepare f0i INA .ho oh
,hnk Indictment Is suIhCl'IIs IN.
..'ars rastd by the demurrer NOT wei Crnnead H.,
tectlons o these views and those eXpreSSeu IN
,S "n,nion OF the learned AppeHa,ea ba rnej
tne Vp concur that the order shouId De ann "''-