The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-12-21
Mr.. ERWIN s
INF AMY.
Indictments Against
Last Board of Free
holders Sho u1d
Never Have Been
Brought.
NO EVIDENCE TOBACK THEM
Effort Was Never Made
to Bring the Cases
to Trial.
QUASHED FOR HAUDLlN REASONS
Blame for the Malevolent
Prosecution Rests Up
on the Prosecutor.
Mr. RloRDAn TELLS THE TALE
One of the Victims Of the Job
Explains the Cause of the
Proceedings.

To the Editor of 1.-THE Jersey City News:
On behalf of myself and the members of
the late Board of Chosen Freeholders or
this county, 1 ask you to publish the fol-
lowing statement
The members of this Board were indict-
ed in November, 1899. The Grand Jury
presented three bills against them. From
the time of their presentation until the
10th day of the present month no effort
was made to bring any of these cases to
trial, nor was anything done in reference
to them until the last mentioned date
when, on the application of the public
prosecutor, a mol pros was entered as to
each of them. In applying to the court
for leave to enter these mol pros the
prosecutor submitted a written statement,
a copy Of which 1 have procured, and it IS
TO this statement purporting to give lhe
prosecutors reasons for his action that
now desire to direct public attention
Referring to one of these indictments
known as No. 12S, September term, 1889,
the prosecutor says ''the defendants are
charged by the Indictment with exceeding
the appropriation or limit of expenditure
provided by law for the fiscal year be-
ginning December 1, 1896, and ending No
vember go 1899 The particular
crime charged in the Indictment is the
payment by the county in pursuance of
resolution of the Board passed February
2, 1S99 of claim of William Heller, Sher-
iff of Hudson county, of ten thousand six
hundred and sixty-nine dollars for fees
and costs and in the care of criminals.
which claim had passed to the estate of
said Heller
The appropriation for the fiscal year In
question was sS66, 1924; so that this in
dictment in effect charges that by the
payment of this item of $10,669 the Board
exceeded the appropriation for that year.
The fact is that after the claim of Heller
had been paid there remained balance of
appropriation to the credit of the county
of more than s6O000O as appeared of rec
ord in the books and in the monthly re-
ports of the County Collector These rec
ords were accessible to the prosecutor
and the Grand Jury before and at the time
of the finding of the indictment, and the
most cursory inspection of them would
have shown the allegation of criminality
in the indictment to have been utterly
false.
The prosecutor says in his statement
that he employed competent expert to
go over the accounts of the Board and
that the delay in acting upon the indict-
ments was occasioned by the fact that
the prosecutor was waiting for the report
of his expert Having received that report
at this late day he learns from it that the
appropriation was not exceeded, but on
the contrary, at the expiration of the fs-
cal year in question, there was still a bal
ance to the credit of the county. Would
it not have been well if the prosecutor
and the Grand Jury had waited for this
report, or at least for correct and definite
information about the situation. before
finding their indictments?
The prosecutor says in his Indictment
Gas to the particular crime charged in
the Indictment the greater part of the
claim OF the Heller estate was incurred
or became due during the fiscal year pre-
ceding the fiscal year in question, and
the court decided in the case of the in
dictment against the F'reeholders, No.
49, December term, 1897. that the Board
of a subsequent year could pay the debts
Incurred by the Board of preceding
year, If sufficient funds were on hand,
and whether the money to pay the debts
was appropriated for the purpose or not.
This appears to be the case from the ex-
pert's report as to the particular crime
charged in the indictment. (See decision
Of Judge Blair in State VS.. Freeholders,
fled October Is, 1852
The indictment of 1897 against the
Board charged as criminal the same
course of conduct precisely as, was
charged as criminal in the indictment
under consideration. As the prosecutor
says. the court held that the conduct de-
nounced by the indictment of 1897 was not
criminal, but on the contrary was entirely
lawful Yet, with the knowledge of this
decision, a knowledge derived from the
fact that he personally represented the
State In the Indictment of 1897. he drew,
An Old and Wall Triad RemafIv