Year: 1873

ing the question. ofice-seeking being one OF the
@ o. tns country ~ m Tns ogssnsr ss
bills already audited by the Board OF supervisors
he stigmatized as entirely unreasonable once
no further audit. Again, they were 10 be sought
In the committee rooms. Whoever heard OF an
rooms. Nor was any certificate or audit required.
The nat OF William M. Tweed was to be enough
Woodward had no legal standing Whatever ne
claimed that in the light OF subsequent acts thus
Mr.. Tweed's signature and tnat or his
ferring % to the II May Mayors message to to the super
vlsors, in which he says his duty as auditor was
Of se ence snss .s nv S
and an admission that the duty OF auditing was ne
elected. II the Mayor felt his duties too onerous
he should have resigned. But he never made any
complaints OF that kind, and he had no business TO
rely upon the signature OF Tweed. II the jury
should find mere technical verdict 1t would be
Tor the Court to administer mere technical PEN
atty. He did not ask the jury TO find that any
Went INTO 5ae and na n
it did. In conclusion counsel said the waters
OF reform have commenced to dow, and 1t
waters OF justice shall be arrested IN their iow II
they found general verdict OF guilty. the defen-
tney % couId ana % him m guilty on ali or @ any Of the
counts or vouchers. he excluded all thought that
any relation existed between the defendant and
any OF the jurors except those disclosed on the
investigation, and lett the case in their hands. The
address lasted nearly three hours.





Judge Daniels commenced TO charge AZ hafpast
four O'clock tie said the defendant was SUBJ
stantialy charged with wn neglect o DUTY Ger
the city government and by the statute the ad.
ditonal duty was imposed upon the defendant
and two other ohclaS. IL was no novel
duty. Ordinarily the duty Is conferred on
the supervisors for county and the muni-
be performed in tins equity by the Board OF Super
vIs0rs, and in taking away the powers OF That
Board, which he understood were legislated out
nf avio Il al "a ~ w
should be conferred upon others. There should be
some authority OF this kind to protect the pubic
against spurious claims and do for them what indi
vlduals do for themselves when bills are presented,
and secure proper aud complete investigation
into these claims before making them tne subec. @
made the subject OF audit, and the Legislature took
measures to provide Tor some action on these
claims. II seems to contemplate an investigation
OF these 100 claims before their payment, and
for this reason the defendant, the ComptrOl-
Ter and President OF the Supervisors were to audit
these claims aud pay such as were found due, and
that was the whole provision imposing the duty
on the defendant which he is charged with having
neglected The term audit is one OF ordinary sig
n1hcation, and seems to have been used by the
Legislature in the same general sense as popularity
the use OF the word he quoted from Senator Hahn,
who, in reporting on Q case, says the duty Of an
volyes % the Exercise % Of Judgment. That That was the
duty imposed upon the defendant. The statute
contemplates the JOINT action OF auditors and
joint c0nsummatiOn Of the duty imposed on them
by making out their certificate OF audit ION
which the bin was to be paid The plain
parties should meet together and act jointly
In exercising the authority conferred. Their duty
was to audit accounts left undisposed OF when the
law was passed, and it was necessary they should
meet and act upon them, and then the determine
tion OF TWO would be tnal and that decision was
object OF this audit and this duty was to prevent
the payment OF spurious bills II proper inves-
tue supcrvisors their false and spurious Character
would have been discovered. Hence auditors
should have demanded from the claimants some
not specifically enjoined, but It was let let
eeace ney Sonss
evidence as in their Judgment would be SUI
aclent to justify the demanas: they mad It IN
such satisfactory proofs; Tue question the jury
had to determine was whether, .s the prosecution
duty. The defendant, being lawyer and man Of
culture and ability should be held to the strict per-
formance of the duty imposed upon him by law; II
public officer wilfuly neglects to perform duty
imposed upon him by law he is guilty OF q
misdcmeanor. The duty imposed on the Board
required investigation, they had no right to dele
gate that duty to any one else. II was, beyond
this Board. Did he decline to perform that dutys
II he did SO designedy and purposeiy he committed
misdemeanor Tor it Is not necessary there should
be any design to defraud. 1t is enough II q party
designs to perform the act which creates the crime.
BY the resolution OF May s, 1870 these three per-





stantially accepted the duties Then they resolved
that che claims be collected by the County Auditor
and passed through substantially without fnvesti-
cation. This, however, was not the crime; 1t was
the intention to commit 1t. For II their inten-
ton was to certify these accounts thus col
disposition and intention TO decline their duty, and
1t was for the jury to say whether, as matter Of
fact, that construction was TO be put on the Ian
guage Of the resolution. But to fnd whether the
crime charged in the Indictment was committed
II was necessary to go further and inquire whether
of mn vUqo led n n
the subject he referred to the testimony OF Mr.
Lynes, booKkeeper, as to the manner in which the
that some OF the bills were OF so grossly fraudulent
character that inspection by the Board would
have IT. These rel relied so.9G On y
not afterwards act together as Board; that
in one bill, for instance, the omission Of the cred
from being passed and the county would be saved
from paying the debt These seven OF Garvey's
bits were made out from wholly imaginary CIR
nivance Of county officials, not including the de-
iendant. There was 2 possibility, at least, that
public had right to the benefit Of an examina-
ton and inspection OF the accounts. he next
5000, 600 for work on the Court House in one
n the 70 s tss
not to one Of the warrants, was evidence
that the Board did not meet to perform their duty.
defendant speaks Of the duty as q ministerial one.
With regard to the defence, that the duties were
% ne ns ers h
duty and wufully neglect 1t, though he may post
pone the duty, or he can entirely surrender his
position The claims to be passed upon were 100
in number, and, with the meanssat their disposal,
the prosecution hold that no great length OF time
would be occupied by the examination. but, what.
ever time would be taken, the duty was there and
could not be neglected or delegated to any one
else. The presumption OF the law is IN favor Of
the defendant He is not to be surmised guilty:
but, on the evidence the jury must be satisfied
beyond q reasonable doubt that he committed the
offence charged against him. II they were 60
satisfied no matter how painful It might be to the
defendants friends that he had 80 involved him
self, 1t was their duty to shut their eyes to the
consequences and pronounce him guilty. He In
structed them that unless they % mad an abiding


find him not guilty. AS to the other charges in the
Indictment, after some time spent In looking over
the evidence he had come TO the conclusion OF In
structing them that there was no evidence to sus-
tain the other charges In the Indictment, and they
should contne themselves TO inquiring whether he
Intentionally and wllfully omitted to perform the