Year: 1873

Simply 70 omit that intention to perform the duties
sutss I'll the onsnce Now. the defendant is charged
with having wilfully neglected to perform his duty
sasnss you that he dd w neSect ts
within the rule rule which ~ have sought to give YOU
issuing OF q certificate corrupty upon


FALSE CLAIM OR LIABILITY
without having audited 1t, and knowing that 1t was
there is distinction, as matter Of course, be-
tween an act done by an o1cer in violation OF duty
ocer In order to p Constitute 0ass sss % %SErence
under the fourth count 1t Is necessary
Sy was false enc %pon whch tne na. cerfncate
was granted; that the certificate Of that liability,
the same being false, was granted, and that tins


trlaf You win ip perceive It &c cSntsins
three elements-nrst that the particular claim
granted that claim and third, that it was known
to the parties granting the certificate to be false


to the evidence tending II" to H show as it was pro-
duced here that the defendant is guilty under this


to BS % ws to %
that 1t was performed by the Board OF Audit. 1t
Sy the suS y n
$50: MI: Han. the Mayor; Mr; Tweed. tSs
Connolly, the Comptroller, met under and pur.
suant TO the requirements Of the fourth section Of
attention. They met the Comptroller's ofiice as
is stated in their resolution The resolution states





as they called themselves by the resolution. That
was sufficient expression OF the object OF their


ntn sasrS aa o. ne.
by the act. They then passed the resolution which
has been 50 frequently read before YOU lIhe Court
then read the resoution.) The passage OF this
resolution has been commented upon, and at one
stage Of this trial II was supposed by myself that
luton, for 1t was so stated by counsel 10 be
IN ITSELF A CRIME,


an O6ence under the law could not 80 view It,
and so expressed myself at the time. 1t seems,
however, that the statement was misconstruction
his opinion The passage Of this resolution was not
In itself an offence; 1t was simply at most decla-
ized the Board and it made preparation, SO to
speak, 1or It's ewn future action Now, In one
sense the declaration h Of what the Board intended
intention to do something that the law, as con-
strue 1t. does not permit But even in that sense,
in the true sense OF the resolution, It's passage
would not be criminal offence unless 1t was fol-
lowed by acts under and In pursuance OF it.
crime. In order to constitute criminal offence
an intention must always be followed by action.
do certain official duty, which is performed on
future day, however, after he may resolve or de-
clare that intent, however emphatically he may
make his intention known, yet II when the time
comes Tor the performance OF his duty he does per-
form 1T, no crime has been committed. But IT, in
the proper time comes for the performance OF that
duty, he negects and refuses to perform it, then
'''' '''''N'iS,'i EVIDENCE IS's OF THE INTENTION


to DO as ne subsequently does do, may be, in con-
Of he So he
OF this resolution was not In itself any offence 1t
simply shadowed forth the course this Board In
tended to take In respect to these liabilities and
If they proposed to take the course which one
construction of this resolution indicates, then,
their proposition was not In conformity with
the law; but II they proposed, notwithstanding
this resolution, to proceed to audit the liabilities
there was nothing Improper in the passage OF this
resolution. The question Is what they did SUBJ
sequenty to the resolution rather than what they
did at the time OF its passage. 1t would seem that
they took no action on the accounts or liabilities
than at that time. They met and having passed
journed Now, 1t Is claimed that was the only
meeting or the Board and their subsequent action
put their signatures to the certificates as they were
subsequently presented to them without the con-
venmg Oh sne commission fSr the purpose Of pass.
and is consistent with the evidence here then 1t is
very clear to my mind that those officers were
guilty OF neglect to audit and are


for that neglect Tp6n t the u question: whether they
action upon these counts You have r evidence nom
vnm wMca you are asked @ q the to form
Of board or commission, but simply that OF ind.
viduals and you have evidence on that subject.
Their first meeting is written record on file indi-
eating their action. They had no clerk, and the
Mayor drafted the resolution which they
adopted. They kept no record or had
that % respect is not of itself s'io an oifence.
only refer to 1t therefore for your consideration
instance OF the Sd of May, Of any written evidence
of an actual meeting. as well as the entire alb
sence Of all proof that these gentlemen convened
again on these twenty.six days to pass these
accounts. as something to be considered by you as
bearing upon the question OF how they did that
dence given here as to their not meeting and the
evidence Of those whose liabilities were passed
their claims, 1t would be certainly


SURPRISING FACT


is NO record in any form hevond tbese certiacafes
and the resolution at the first meeting. Did they
meet and act jointly upon these accounts Did
partcuar account or any Sam rhe2e rahpSe
is, in connection with this also, some other
considered by you. bearing upon the face OF
the vouchers and other papers brought now before
are gone, and they are shown satisfactorily to the
Court to be lost; but there are ten, believe of
Mr.: Keyser's vouchers brought in. They are sub
mtted to you as evidence. They are before you
What appears upon them, so far as 1t bears upon
whether there was an actual meeting OF the Board
bities is therefore appropriate subject Tor your
consideration. l shall not detain you by calling
sufficient for the purpose of giving you some idea
as to what shall now call your attention to. In
e andtMsSree & eb believeare signed @ only by two Of
these men, Tweed and Connolly The testimony
shows that some Of those which are lost were also
not signed by the three; that there were some cer
tifcates not signed by the Mayor. but that


ALL WE'RE SIGNED BY TWEED


and Comptroller Connolly. That Is q circumstance,
of course, which you may Justly consider as bear
ing upon the question whether parties actually
around and signed. You may, / think, with pro-
priety look also to what appears upon the face OF
the certificates, and for that purpose l pass them
around to you. You win see that an entire dis
similarity apparent the face Of the bills the
ink by which the bills signed. These CIR
cumstances appearing upon the face OF the papers
bearing upon the question as to whether the
parties actually met as the law required them, or
whether they were signed, as clHmed by the
people, at different times and in dinerent places,
without meeting. There is another on which


THE INK SIGNED BY TWEED Is VIOLET


and the others are black ink Now, you will see
that this question Of neglect to audit Is wholly in
dependent so far with the character Of the lisbil-
ity; quite independent OF the evidence OF Mr. Gar
vey or OF any other witness who testified on the
subject or Of the mode OF making up the liabili-
ties themselves; quite independently also OF the
hath fha iabiI xuar Gnl