The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1913-06-24

I TT may mot Iud q pIO JTIdI5
to make some general observations con-
corning this case against Hilton, the former
Road Supervisor, and these cases against
certain former members of the Board OF
These parties are all indicted under the
provisions of Section 1859 of the Crimes Act.
er Of a county, who shall obtain any money
1 from the county, not lawfully and justly
due shall be guilty Of high misde meanor.
/ The defendants, at first, pleaded not guilty,
but afterwards retracted that plea and
entered pleas of non vult contendere. from
the facts which have come to the know
undisputed, counsel for the defendants
| should be commended for advising their
| clients to enter such pleas, because II seems
beyond comprehension how, upon trlal any
honest Jury, upon hearing the facts, could
have done other than return verdict OF
| guilty.
| indicted is somewhat exceptional in that 1t
| is not incumbent upon the State, in such
cases, as It is in many other cases, to prove
| a criminal intent. The legislature, in max
| ing this law saw fit to eliminate this features;
| that the legislature had legal right to do
this cannot be questioned, ana the Courts
| have in cases somewhat similar, affirmed
| the legislatures authority to make such
laws Undoubtedly the action of the legts-
| Iature was prompted by reasons of public
| policy, for while there is reason to require
| proof as to the existence OF criminal in
| tent when one person obtains money from
another person in excess ot the amount
| due, in order to invoke the criminal law of
| the state, yet with respect TO public officials
who, by reason of their positions. have ae-
cess 10 public funds, and where the funds
are at their disposal 1t is only along lines
| of good policy to require from such officials
| higher degree of accuracy with respect to
| such funds than IL is between citizens deal
ing with each other. When citizens deal
with each other IL can be assumed that both
parties viii conserve and protect their own
interest, except where deceived by fraud,
but where a public officer is, TO certain ex-
tent, in the position of dealing with himself
there is no one except him and his asso-
ciates to protect the public.
With respect to the Freeholders. the
charges consist of Implications In that they
charged the county more than once for the
same days service. The amounts, either
separately or as whole are, fortunately,
small. IAN investigation OF these mems
dealings with the county prior to the
time covered by the indictments dis
closes that the Offenses charged in the In
dictments are not exceptional, but on the
contrary, indicative of what the practice
for some time has been. 1t is contended
that these Implications of charges were mis-
takes. They may have been. On the other
hand there is indication that they were not
mistakes, but were the result of an unwar-
ranted and unlawful custom which had
been prevailing in the Board of Free holders
for some time. 1t may be possible that
some of these men thought they had a legal
right to charge for different services render
ed on the same day. OfcOurse they had not.
1t may be possible there was desire to
make as many charges as possible against
the county. This theory Is not without
some facts upon which 1t-might be founded.
With respect to the charges against Hill
ton. the former Road Supervisor, there
seems to be two classes. The first class re-
lates to moneys which Hilton received from
the County for expenses incident to his
OFFICE Notwithstanding his salary was sup
posed to be in full for both services and eEs
penses. In this respect it may be worthy of
mention that when the Board OF Freehold |
ers fixed his salary there was no affirmative
act by the Board stating that 1t should cover
the expenses incident thereto. The minutes
fnfa hat Of
an Individual member of the Board, thus |
indicating that while such may have been |
the intention of the Board, yet the Board
did not so express Itself OH the subject In |
formal and binding way. Was this an over |
sight or by design? Besides this it appears |
that these different items of expense were
regularly submitted to the Board and passed |
ana approved by the Board, and while The |
Court is of the opinion that there was at |
least an understanding between the Board |
and Hilton, in the first instance, that the |
salary fixed should cover the ex penses, yet /
the subsequent action of the Board In pass |
ing and allowing these claims, absolyes
the defendant from criminal responsibility |
with respect thereto. There may have been |
a moral breach by both the defendant and |
voted to pay these bills, but in these pro-
ceedings the Court cannot punish for moral
lapses, but only for transgressions of the |
law.
of errors in subtraction and errors in addi-
ton in his bills rendered as against the |
charges by the Freeholders. may have been
mistakes, but the receipt Of such large |
sums of money in excess OF the amounts
due, to most men, would have been an i'm
mediate indication that something was
wrong 1t might be said in passing that an
examination of the public records shows
that Hilton made some mistakes as against !
himself. The amounts, however were small.
The Court is of the opinion that the receipt |
of these moneys by Hilton may be ex-
planned on the theory of mistake, but its
retention is a matter not vet g0tiRfQnfnritV |
explained. SIN this connection ii is not
amiss to say that these derelictions of Hilton
are attributable almost as much to others |
as they are to him. If the auditing officers
of the County had done their duty the mis-
take, If such it be, would never have oc-
CURED. The question, therefore, naturally
arises in our mind whether there was a mis-
take or conspiracy. There is no charge of
the latter and, of course. IL cannot have
serious consideration on the final DISPOSE
tion of the matter, but at the same time
how these alleged mistakes, not only with
to Hilton but with respect to others,
could have escaped the attention of those
whose duty it was to conserve and protect
the interest OF the County, is beyond under
dealings with respect to the bills submitted,
had been indicted for a conspiracy to cheat
and defraud the County and had either en-
tered a plea of admission or been found
guilty on trial, the Court would feel COM
PEELED to administer punishment which
would be an admonition for years to come.
that the present condition is the out-growth of a
pernicious system which prevailed in the Board
of Freeholders for some time past. To accept
the statement OF the defendants in these cases
at its full face value, it is evident that these
men have not only been careless but that the
others have also been careless. The attention.
or rather the inattention, paid to public matters
was such which if applied to private affairs
would inevitably lead to disaster. It is appar-
emit by reason of the fact that every one of these
excessive charges could have been checked by
even a superficial examination of the bills pre-
sented, that little, if any, attention was even
paid to these important details. 1t is to be la
mented that there was not some man or set of
men, in the Board of Freeholders, who insisted
upon audit of the bills. The most charitable
thing that can be said concerning what was
called an audit is that there was none, because
If there had been an audit there must have been
the grossest incompetency or a conspiracy.
The men now before the court were a part of
that system. Each is not only responsible for |
the position in which he finds himself but is
also responsible for the position in which his
fellows are found. Others against whom no
charges are here presented, are to an extent re-
sponsible for the position in which these men :
are now placed.
To epitomize the whole situation il is this
The grossest kind of carelessness prevailed
with respect to these men and their dealings
with the county. Whether the specific acts
charged in the indictments are the out come of |
that carelessness, whether the customs
which permeated the whole system was not
but rather conspiracy, or whether
the so called carelessness was such as to en- +,
courage and permit populations will possibly !
never be definitely determined but it is certain
ly to be hoped that there will never be a recur-
renee of these conditions. IL
There has been some caustic criticism of the
man men who originally furnished the in
upon which these charges are found
ed. Such criticism is not only unjust but uu-
This man these men, either as
citizens or public officials having learned of
these conditions had a duty in the premises !
and discharged that duty in a way deserving of ,
rather than criticism When a
citizen, and more especially a public official
knows of an infraction of the law it is his duty
to acquaint the law officers of the county there
with and to furnish all possible assistance to
the end that the malefactors may be brought to
Justice. The presentation of the facts which
these indictments to the prosecutor |
and the presentation OF them by the prosecutor |
to the grand jury, and the action of the grand I
jury thereon has been, perhaps unwiilingly
but nevertheless effectively affirmed and ap-
proved by the defendants themselves by their
pleas. For the defendants or their friends to
criticise any person or persons who had any ,
thing to do with these proceedings indicates a
condition of mind, prejudice or partiality in
consistent with good citizenship. For any
person to have known of the existence of the
of the facts upon which these charges were
founded and to have concealed them would of
itself have been breach ofthe law. Ii
So much for the offences as they stand The
law pronounceS these offences high inisdemean-
DIS and the maximum sentence to be imposed is
severe. Feeling with respect to
these offences has been so intense and even di-
vided that the court will not attempt to reflect
public opinion even if it could be ascertained in
.r.I-