Year: 1872


DECISION RESERVED ON ALL THE POINTS.


The proceedings In the case OF the People against
william NJ. Tweed In the Court Of Oyer and Ter
miner, which were begun last Tuesday by q motion
on the part OF defendants counsel to quash the IN
dictmenton the ground that two other later indict
ments still In the Court Of General Sessions had
superseded the indictment In this Court, were re-
sumed yesterday before very. crowded audience,
Judge Brady on the Bench


Counsel for Tweed opened the proceedings by
claiming that the afidavits introduced by him must
be met by anidavits for the prosecution.


Mr.. Peckham replied that admitting all said in
the adavit to be true, 1t was simply the fact that
there was mistake OF fact on the part OF counsel
on each side and did not antect the question
Of law now before the Court. He should
simply now discuss the law question.
The indictment for larceny, which was
said to supersede this indictment, was simple
charge that he obtained warrant The charge in
this case that he obtained certificate OF audit
1raudulently. On mere inspection the Court could
see that this was not the same offence nor ABOUT
the same instrument, which was the fact Of the
case Counsel had asked hlm to show how o false
signature to the certificate could be forgery. The
statute made false signature, by which pecun
ary claim or evidence of such claim, was created,
o forgery. The statute creating the Audit Board
made the certificate OF the Auditing Board
the evidence OF correct claim against
the city. 1t was not necessary that
damage should have actually arisen. And
II Mr.. Tweed, by signing the Mayors name
would have been guilty Of forgery, then
In obtaining his signature fraudulenty, he came
within the Mock Auction act Under this view Of
the case the proper course Of the prisoner was not
to move to quash an Indictment, but to stand his
trial and then, II attached the other plead the
previous trial. But IL the statute were to be fol-
lowed strictly then the proper course was not q
motion to quash, but plea. Where there was any
difference in the records the Court could not on
mere inspection determine that the two indict-
ments were the same. That could only be deter
mined on evidence. In these two indictments there
was broad distinction. In this Mr. Tweed stood
alone. In the other Mr.. woodward was charged
with the main act, and, If Tweed should SO elect,
woodward must be first tried. The Court could
not decide on mere inspection that they
were identical. There was not feature on
the two alike, except the amount of the draft
mentioned in each. The act was different the
crime was different, the parties different and the
means different. AS to the Endorsement for forgery
there was no resemblance in the crimes. One
might receive paper by chcanery and fraud and
afterwards perpetrate another crime to make the
first effectual. They were even more widely diff
ferent than fraud and larceny; but he admitted
that in one feature the two indictments were alike;
both set out the same warrant, and in another
count of the present indictment 1t alleged that
he converted this warrant, and it was argued that
there could be no conversion without a forgery,
and that evidence Of the forgery must be given to
sustain this crime. Now that evidence might be
Objectionable on the trial, but that alone was no
reason. Evidence Of one crime might be pertinent
to the proof OF another crime not. It's admission
rested entirely In its pertnancy to the cause on
Sorgerv tn snstan tna cheat AMI vet the crima b
distinct. Might 1t not be that he obtained the
warrant by cheat and afterwards, as he was in
formed was the truth, forged the endorsement and
thus obtained the whole money and that those two
were distinct offences.
never before realized how mean the State OF New
York was. Here was District Attorney with an
abie o!s assistant tai ana two appointed, not elected
face it, but made faces at It, He wished the people
could be here to see what was done in their name


Mr.. Peckham here asked that counsel be con-
fined, as he had been, TO the mere legal question:
or that he have leave to answer the other portions
legal points W Would uu avail % with him. 81 on' VIC


Counsel, resuming, said he supposed that the
people were willing to place themselves in the
the question Of the identity Of the s' warrant rant
Of Sad beug se
was the same. But he argued that the indictments
themselves the highest record proof, was of itself
SUFFICIENT proof Of the identity OF the papers on
which all three were founded. The larceny indict-
ment, which more fully than the forgery indictment
ment, described the paper alleged to be stolen in
three different ways, clearly identical with the
described In this indictment. But II the indict-
ments did not show their identity OF themselves,
what would be given as parol evidence Of such
Identity 1t was publicly announced that one or


was e q
by the size and general appearance OF the in,
dictment had mistaken the one. There had
been charge within the last forty weight hours in
public paper that the District Attorney had In
order to secure three years. renewal OF his term
es once ss d his Scs 70 be run IN the In
counsep had been SO impressed with what seemed
to him the malevolent action Of the District Attor
time on bad terms, and even did not speak. But
the defendant had right to rely on this state
intended to supersede this Indictment. Nor did
Mr.. Peckham himself deny the afidavit OF Mr..
Tweed. But the Court had the right, II these in
dictments were not on the same instruments, to
compel the prosecution to produce the three, so
that the matter might be determined.


Judge Brady said he did not understand that
Mr.. Peckham denied the three were on the same
papers; Te pecsDam ..,a ne o,a 10. e,t,., admit
deny 1t.


Counsel claimed that in the bitterness of their
persecution OF Mr.. Tweed they had cut their
own throats. 1t seemed like an overruling Provi-
There was an instance In Holy Writ where one had
built gallows on which he first was hanged. But
that they in their over eagerness had impris-
ing the law. The statute quoted by Mr.. Peckham
did not make the tour papers to whose completion
until Keyser Co. endorsed them, nor mad Mr.
Hairs signature, without that Of his two associates
n e ns Ssos caGa " an 70
which false signature would be forgery. The