The New York Herald Newspaper, December 25, 1873, Page 4

25%, : THE COURTS. ‘EX-MAYOR HALL’S TRIAL. os eh Te Summing Up Addresses of Counsel for the Prisouer and for the Prosecution. ———+ ——— THE DEFENCE CALLS NO WITNESSES. _ VERDICT “NOT GUILTY.” Enthusiasm of Mr. Friends. Hall’s Yesterday the second actual day ofthe third trial of ex-Mayor A. Oakey Hull, the case was given to the jury. The defence calied no witnesses. The pro- teedings of the day were therefore entirely con- Bned to the summing up of counsel on either side nd the charge of the jury. The addresses of pounsel were pretty lengthy, that for the prose- ‘eution occupying three hours. The court room was *rowded throughout the day up to the moment ‘that the jury retired to dejiberate upon the ver- dict—six o'clock, The addresses of counsel and the charge of the Judge were listened to with the Geepest attention, At ten o’clock Mr, Stoughton commenced SUMMING UP FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr. Stoughton said he had come to the conclu- wion, after an examination of the evidence, in view of the fact that the prosecution dtd not even Mmtimate any connection with these frauds, except the technical one, that no evidence was called for on their part. Men had come before them with the haraihood to avow their own guilt and their own participation in the profits of that guilf. He sup- posed they spoke the truth. Had there been an intimation that Mr. Hall was a party to these frauds, or shared in the profits, they would have felt bound to answer the vaguest suggestions of shat kind, But the prosecution did not even inti- mate such an idea, On their own theory, Mt was narrowed down to a simple technical question, whether Mr. Hall, without guilt, had been careless. It had been intended to make a distinct motion for a di- rection of acquittal, but, in deferenceto the desire efthe jury to hasten through the cause, it had een resolved to present together that argument %& the Court, and the direct argument to the jury, imterweaving them as the matter should require. He quoted the case of The People vs. Bennett, in 49 New York Reports, to the effect that the Court ‘may direct an acquittal, and might, ui cases where the evidence was weak, upon the facts, and should where the evidence did not in any view warrant a tonviction. He desired the jury to consider who Mr. Hall was. What were his relations to the eity? For 12 years he was District Attorney. During that time his official life was stain- less. No one had ever charged him with conduct unbecoming an officer charged with BO grave an office. Examining every case, and never guilty of oppression, he had led ® stainless official life. They might search the past in vain for a single utterance during that period to his discredit. Friends had grown up ground him; children had grown up around him. Bis reputation stood high, There was everything to induce him to continue the course which had so far marked him. He became the Chief Magistrate ofthe city. In 1870 the whole framework of the city was changed. He had to iannch the new city government. Imagine his constant duties during that period, with constant routine work, constant consultations, constant work of every kind, full of pride that he was inaugurating a newera. In 1871 there were charges spread abroad. At once he ‘went to the Comptrolier’s Office to inquire into them, and what did he do? He appointed a com- mittee, half of taxpayers, half of officials that they had from the prosecution. Did they be- lueve that he felt then that he was more guilty than any of them? Monday was ‘the day fixed by them ior the examination of the accounts, The Sunday previous the vouchers were stolen, At once Mayor Hall invited Connolly to resign, incurring, of course, his enmity, willing, fm his trust in his own honesty, to incur such enmity. Time went on, and, partly under the in- GQuence of political feelings, partly under feelings fess creditable, this indictment was found. Mr. Hall went on in the discharge of his duties, fearless im the consciousness of his own innocence. The trial came, and then—whatever appeared before—it then appeared that not one dollar of this money hadever stained his hand. Then cleared before the public, the counsel had supposed, with many others, that the case was ended. But now, in this geason of peace and good will, they were called again before a jury. They had seen how the case had been conducted. They had heard how oiten he, when making objections, had offered to withdraw any objection if the evidence was to show & dollar coming to Mr. Hall, What wit- had they here? Keyser, most respectable king; Garvey, not qnite so respectable looking. ‘Why were they ut liberty ? Was it to convict Mr. Hall? They, with Watson, gone to his long home, and Woodward, who was absent ‘for his health,’ sat down to Weave a web of fraud to make up a bill full of items dated back, Whom did they want to @eceive? It was not necessary to deceive Tweed or Connolly. ‘the only man that must be deceived ‘was Mayor Hall. If any of them had been present at Genet’s trial they would remember that fle was convicted of deceiving Mayor Hall. Another general consideration for them was that to constitute crime a guilty in- must concur with the evil act. What earthly motive had Mr. Hall for this act? Avarice @nd necessity were common motives for crimes, Those who had been convicted were convicted be- cause they had been shown to have done these acts for theirown advantage. But was there any- of the kind here? Garvey had told them of the distribution of the moneys, but was Mayor Hall ‘mplicated? There must have been not only an evil act, but an evil intent, and he quoted at length to the effect that the officer, to be responsible civ- ily or criminally, must have done the act wiltully— ‘that is, inst his convictions and maliciously; a mistake pit ek was not enough; he must have knowingly and intentionally perverted his wers to injustice. This act, under which the first counts were framed, used this word ws —that is, intentionally, knowing it to be ‘wrong, With a criminal intent, and he quoted cases so Interpreting the law. 1 then discussed the section of the act of 1870, creating the Board of Audit. He calied atten- tion to the fact that the Legislature gave the Board mo power to call or swear witnesses; it prescribed mo measure of proof. It lett to their discretion ‘what manner of proof at would take. It left to them the right to pass a bill as any man would pass ‘@ bill of items presented to himseif, on the theory that the man who presented the bill was honest. If they believed the bill was honest, could they be criminally liable tor auditing it? Was each ge diversely to decide what evidence was neces- , and so establish different ruies of crime? Was ‘be the ex oath of the claimant? Such hs, Custom House oaths, were @ byword. ‘Fhey re discontinued rightfully enough some years fore, How did the Comptroller now do? He e#ent round an ent, and, on his report, Paid the money. Was Mr. Hall to sit down and examine each bill, ana strip from it the fraudu- lent } garb, bill by bill? 1t was easy to be wise after the ‘vhe late great Emperor, who sent out his armies, believing them fully equipped, to meet pd tig) People, could, alter his defeats, easily see t irauds had sapped the gtrength of the army on which he relied. Wisdom that came after the fact was always to be distrusted. Ii Mr. Hall allowed only such bills as he then believed to be honest, he was in no sense liable criminally, and the -prosecution, to establish criminality, must show, affirmatively, knowledge that they were not honest. The three first counts he had no doubt, notwithstanding the use of the word corruptly in the third count, were framed on the theory of a simple refusal to audit these accounts. ‘The fourth count was the common law count for corruptly suditing. That he did nov think his friends on tne other pick ee erate insist on, 4 in here interupted, saying - fon intended to rely on al ie “niga q oxpresse surprise at this, as in ‘opening nor the testimony had any- of this kind been suggested. He procceded that the crime, under the statute, must made out by proof tliat they had refused to do act; not that they did it improperly or iraud- ‘which fell under the common law; axd if ndants went through the act of audit and the form of a certificate of audit, they couid iad ny under the statute for refusing to audit, ler the common Jaw for malefeasance. The theory of fhe HEE 38 . the prosecution was that there was no it, either because Pe, took insufficient proof 6 bills knowing them to it. recalled to them the position at of the Board of Supervisors having exclu- tion to decide all claims st the ~. When they were abolished the Ag thom were 1 three man, ,Would not have taken alarm then, , ment. unstained name, ¥ tson had been since 1862, On hi out without any accusation of fraud. Woodw: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, with high trust was then unsuspected. They must look at what then existed, with the thea lights; not with the lights we now had. Had Mr. Hall any right to suspect Mr. Connolly or Mr. ‘weed or Mr. Watson or Mr. Woodward ¥ ‘The defendant was not a suspicious man, and even & Lena man us 8 matters in 1870, when Mr. Hall, overwhelmed with his duties, had to reorganize the city govern- They had heard something of his duties. He claimed that with all these duties, and sur- rounded by these Old officials, he was justified in taking th certificates and looking no furvner. Suppose Mr. Hall bad said, We will pass no claims except those which have passed into judgment and are certified by the Clerk of the Court. That would have been thought a very sopsgene and very cautious rule. But this could not done. ‘The Courts could not pass on claims against the county; only the Supervisors could do that—and so Mr. Hall moved the corresponding resolution that they shouid pass only such claims as had passed the Supervisors or the appropriate committee, and that these claims should be certified to have 8o passed by the Clerk and the Chairman, Was not this equivalent to requiring the judgment of the Court and the certiticate of the Clerk? Counsel here read the resolution of the Board of Audit, and claimed that it was all the most cau- —— man could ask, demanding proof of the pre- vious action of the Supervisors or the proper com- mitttee, authenticated by the Presiaent and Clerk, belore they could act; and then they would act on what bad been acted on for 13 years, This was a judicial determination of what was to be passed. Alter this it was @ mere ministerial act to verify the signatures of the Clerk and President and sign the certificate, It was like the case where a board had decided a class of cases and alterwards signed separately the Judgments im each particular case, He said this in view of the corner into waich the pragecution was driven, and on which they restea their hopes that these auditors would have met on each bill, They remembered Mr, Storr’s testimony, that these bills examined by him were authenti- cated and endorsed, as he had explained, They had seen the Keyser vouchers, and one of them, a long bill, had not bow the authentication on it. But they must remember that these vouchers had been tossed about from court to court, and they were not sure it was im the state it was when it went before Mayor Hall. But when they remembered Mr. Hall’s acquaintance with Mr. Keyser—his age and respectability, and thas the bill was claimed to be honest, it was easy for them to see that it was no great neglect to accept such a bill with little examination. He recalled to them that the bills were all dated as far back as 1868 or 1869; that they were made out in great detail of items, that Mr. Hall could not detect the falsity of tne items ex- cept by the confession of the parties who made them out. He reminded them that Mr. Hall had to sign an average of over 60 warrants a day and could not examine each bill, but must de- end on the examination of subordinates. if Furies were to hold an icial a criminal for the acts of subordinates no honest man could be found to take office. It was hopeless for the prosecution to attempt to show any corrupt or fraudulent act in the Mayor’s conduct. The prosecution relied on the theory that because they had not met together to consider each case therefore Mr. Hall was guilty. They had come down to that—a mere technical offence—and on that they proposed to imprison Mr. Hall tor 55 or 140 years, Such a re- sult would be disgraceful. But when they were reduced to that the law stepped in. The Board could have investigated the bills if they suspected them, without Garvey’s presence. Woodward and Watson would have been the most natural persons for the Board to apply to. Mr. Stoughton then, addressing the Court, called attention to the case in 49th New York Reports, and asked his Honor to consider, first, whether the construction which he had suggested ought not to be given to this statute, under which the indictment was found; whether there had not been what, in judicial consideration, must be re- garded as an.audit, and that if there has been an audit then the statute had not been violated, that there had been no wilful neglect to periorm that act, If the Court came to a different con- clusion, then 1o bear in mind the meaning of the word “wilful,”? that it is criminal neglect of a known duty either in auditing bills on testimony known to be insufficient and certitying bills known to be fraudulent, or that tt is in a failure to méet under the act of 1870. Bearing that in mind, he would ask the Court to consider if there was any evidence to go to the jury that Mr. Hall had any Knowledge or reason to suppose that these bills were false and fradulent, and whether he was not justified in acting judicially upon the testi- mony prescribed by that resolution, and that if the Board didn’t meet there was no evidence whatever that Mr. Hall supposed or knew that they were bound to meet after the meeting referred to. He submitted turther that there was no proof under the fourth count, and that upon that there should be an instruction to acquit. Mr, Stoughton conciuded with a brief appeal to the jury, invoking them to remember how en- tirely Mr. Hall was separated from those implicated in these frauds, ME. TREMAIN’S SUMMING UP. Mr. Tremain commenced his summing up by al- luding to the unpleasantness of his duty in asking oi them the conviction of a member of his own pro- Tession, anc ntleman for whom he bad always felt respect. He could not ahrink rom that duty; but he would do it without, he belleved, any cruel words, Without swerving irom the line of duty. The case was important to the defendant, his friends and family, but the individual importance of the case sank into si eae compared with its ot egnerg ‘eater importance to the public, It would be 8: if where, by the neglect of one man, and he the chosen guardian of the treasury, millions had been robbed from the public, a morbid sentiment should excuse from punishment, The example of those in high places spread rapidly. If those who had high and tmperial powers were allowed to perform these duties according to their wishes those lower in po- sition would quickly imitate them. A Sheriff would, instead of obeying the mandate of the Court to convey a prisoner to jail, ride about with him to hotels and his home, meaning no wrong, and inferior officials, each in his degree, would similarly neglect to obey the law. This ease was important to the public for the enforcement of law; to the widow and orphan, that they be not despotied by the neglect of these guardians; im- portant to the honor of the city; important to the State, whose good name had been brought into disrepute; to the nation, on whose name these transactions had brought dishonor. The jury had simply to determine the facts. It the offence was Merely technical could they not trust the merciful Judge, who was trusted with a wide discretion— denied to the jury—and to the mercy of the digni- fied Executive of the State? Mr. Tremain then explained the difference of the pun- ishments. of misdemeanors and felonies. In this case they had _ presented 55 separate charges, four of which they had not attempted to prove. The 61 they had proved were on the war- rants of Keyser, Garvey and Davidson. On each of these there were four counts, framed to meet the strictness required by the rules of pleading, the first three framed under the statute and the tourth under the common law. He explained to them that the statute made the wilful omission of an official duty a misdemeanor, while the common law declared any perversion of office also a misde- meanor. He recalled the fact that the defendant himself when District Attorney procured the con- viction of Judge Bogart for # similar act, and in that argued that the word oe was mere teauaoaly! the word “wilfully” meant “in- tentionally,” and whatever his good faith, if he intended to do the forbidden act, it was doin; it wilfully, In that position the Court sustaine him. Tne Court here took a recess, After Recess. Mr. Tremain resumed his argument for the prosecution, claiming in the beginning that a MInistake on the rt of Mayor Hall method prescribed by law tor auditing these claims was no defence to him. He was bound to If he made a mistake, and under that mistake refnsed to or unintentionally did not do any duty imposed on him, he was guilty. He then discussed the question of what those duties were. He aliuded to the almost imperial powers conferred by the Charter of 1870 upon the Mayor of the city, including this power to audit all these State claims. He argued that to audit meant to examine, to inquire into, That had been settled 1 the various trials growing out of the Board. He reminded them that it was their duty to take the law from the Court, and then, turning to the Court, argued that the duty imposed on the Board of Audit was to examine, investigate and cail wit- nesses before them in joint meeting, and that the public was entitled to the joint action of the three minds, and that they could neither act separately nor delegate their powers to any. le read at length from Judge Davis’ charge, and asked the Court to charge the same thing, and to the same effect the opinion of another e. It had been said that when it was ascertained that no portion of the money could be traced to Mr. Hall, the public mind expected that the case would be thus ended. Where was the proof of such desired state of the public mind?’ He re- minded them that the jury disegreed in the Tweed case. There were many reasons for the disagreement of jury, eapectaily while the first two men called were the judges the other jurors, ahd great public officials had their thou- sands of henchihen in the poe The ques- tion of personal corruption sunk into insigniti- cance beside the facts of this case. He had shown them thatin this class of cases aman with she best motives might be a criminal if he substituted his own judgment for the law. They would re- member that Mr. Connolly was appointed by the @eiendant, and a high eulogy had been pronounced on him by counsel for the defence, Mr, Stoughton interrupted him, saying that he had simply spoken oi Mr. Connolly's then position. Mr. ‘Tramaingresmed his argument, pointing vut that a thiet who stole was liable for a felon: while the man who, by his neglect, permitted thi city to be Peg of millions could oniy be pun- ished, under an old law, for @ misdemeanor, be- cuuse, to the credit of our own ancestors and of the pe per people, the possibility of such a crime was not anticipated. To no officer was euch high au- thority given as to the Mayor. was the elect of the people. To him the Legislature trusted these important duties as the representative of the whole st know the law. ~ of the city, elected by an overwhell ma- rity, On the first oa, s met—it was at the omptrotier’s office, the natural teas and ac- wares the duttes imposed. uous they need not hi ad was no compuision in organ! that the merely to together bilis already audited iy ee Board of Supervisors he stigmatized as en' Once in the committee rooins. audited bill travelling back to the committee rooms. Nor was any certificate of audit required, The flat of William M. Tweed was to be aay ‘Woodward had no legal standing whatever. He claimed that in the light of subsequent acts this resolution was Mr. ‘Tweed’s signature henchman in piace of doing his duty, ferring to the yor’s message to the Super- visors, in which he says his duty as auditor was merely ministerial, remarked that this was com- pletely the opposite of the defence set up for him and an admission that the duty of auditing was ne- retired If the Mayor felt his duties too oncrous e should have resigned. But he never made any complaints of that kind, and he had no business to rely upon the rignature of Tweed. If the jury shouid find a mere technical verdict it would be Jor the Court to administer a mere technical pen- ality. He did not ask the jury to find that any money went into the defendant’s pocket, and he rejoiced to say there was no proof whatever that it did. In conclusion counsel said the waters of reform have commenced to flow, and it was for the jury to determine whether the waters of justice shall be arrested in their tow. If they found a general verdict of guilty, the defen- dant could oniy be punished for one offence, or they could find ‘him guilty on all 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 leit the case in their hands, The address lasted nearly three hours. JUDGE DANIELS’ CHARGE TO THE JURY. Judge Daniels commenced to charge at balf-past four o’ciock, He said the defendant was sub- stantially charged with wilful neglect of duty. Cer- tain changes were contemplated and were made in the city government, and by the statute the ad- ditional duty was imposed upon the deiendant and two other officiais, It was no novel duty, Ordinarily the duty is the supervisors for @ county and the muni- cipal oficers for @ city. it was required to be performed in this county by the Board of Super- visors, and in taking away the powers of that Board, which he understood were legislated out of existence, 1t became necessary that the power should be conferred upon others. There should be some authority of this kind to protect the public against spurious claims and do for them what indi- viduals do for themselves when bills are presented, and secure a proper aad complete investigation into these claims beiore making them the subject of payment. aims existed which had not been made the subject of audit, and the Legisiature took measures to provide jor some action on these claims, Itseems to contemplate an investigation of these 190 claims before their payment, and for this reason the defendant, the Comptrol- ler 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 rs prety The term audit is one of ordinary sig- ification, and seems to have been used by the Legislature in the same general sense as popularly ‘understood in the community, As an instance of the use of the word he quoted from Senator Hahn, who, in reporting on @ case, Bays the duty of an au auditor is to andit, examine, settle, and in- volves the exercise of judgment. That was the duty im d upon the deiendant. The statute contemplates the joint action of auditors and joint consummation of the C4 imposed on them by making out their certificate of audit “on which the bill was to paid. The plain import of that act of 1870 was that these 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 ye and it was necessary they should meet and act upon them, and then the determina- tion of two would be final, and that decision was required to be embodied in their certificate. The object of this audit and this duty was to prevent the payment of spurious bills. If a proper inves- tigation of these accounts had been made before tne Supervisors their false and spurious character would have been discovered. Hence auditors should have demanded from the claimants some proof of the claims. Tne proceeding was not specifically enjoined, but it wus leit ther judgment to determine the they would require as to these claims being honest, genuine claims—such evidence as iD their judgment wouid be sui- ficient to justily the demanas, They had it in their power to insist on the claimants producing Buch satisiactory proofs. Tie question the jury had to determine was whether, is the prosecution held they had proved, the deiendant neglected that duty. The defendant, being a lawyer and a man of culture and ability, should be lield to the strict per- formance of the duty imposed upon him by law. If @ public officer wilfully neglects to perform a duty imposed upon him by law he guilty of @ misdemeanor. The duty imposed on the Board being ol a personal and judicial character, which required investigation, they had no right to dele- ate that duty to any one else. It was, beyond joubt, @ personal duty required of the members of this Board. ‘Did he decline to perform that duty? If he did so designedly and purposely he committed misdemeanor, jor it is not necessary there should be any design to defraud. Itis enough ifa party Gesigns to perform the act which creates the crime. By the resolution of May 5, 1870, these three per- sone met as a Board under the statute, and sub- stantially accepted tne duties. Then they resolved that che claims be collected by the County Auditor and passed through substantially, without Investi- eS ‘This, however, was not the crime; it was he intention to commit it. For if their inten- tion was to certily these accounts thus col- lected without examination, then there were the disposition and intention to decline their duty, and it was for the jury to say whether, as a matter of fact, that construction was to be put on the lan- guage of the resolution. But to find whether the crime charged in the indictment was committed it was necessary to go further and inquire whether that purpose was carried out. On this branch of the subject he referred to the testimony of Mr. Lynes, bookkeeper, as to the manner in which the warrants were made out and to the argument that some of the bills were of so grossly fraudulent acharacter that inspection by the Board would have revealed it. These were relied on by the prosecution as proof that the Board did not alterwards act together as @ Board; that in one bill, for instance, the omission of the credi- tor’s name on the bill would have prevented it from being passed and the county would be saved from paying the debt. These seven of Garvey’s buts Were made out from wholly imaginary cir- cumstances, at the suggestion and with the con- nivance of county officials, not including the de- fendant. There was a ibility, at least, that these frauds would have been detected, and the gptite had a right to the benefit of an examina- ion and inspection of the accounts, He next called attention to the largeness of tne bills— 600,000 for work on the Court House in one the signatures to the certificates being in different colored inks, and the that defendant’s signature was not to one of the warrants, was evidence that the Board did not meet to perform their duty. He also cited the Mayor’s message, in which the defendant speaks of the duty as a ministerial one. With regard to the deience, that the duties were too arduous, he instructed the jury that this would be no excuse. The officer cannot undertake the duty and wilfully neglect it, though he may post- pone the duty, or he can entirely surrender his position. The claims to be passed upon were 190 in number, and, with the meansat their disposal, the prosecution hold that no great length of time ‘would be occupted by the examination. 1But, 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 satisiied rink @ reasonable doubt that he committed the offence charg it him. If they were 20 satisfied, no matter how pantel it might be to the defendant’s friends that he had so involved him- self, it was their duty to shut their eyes to the consequences and pronounce him guilty. He in- structed them that unless they had an abidin; conviction of the deiendant’s guilt they shoul find him not guilty. As to the other charges in the indictment, after some cime 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 confine themselves to inquiring whether he intentionally and wilfully omitted to perform the duties prescribed by iaw. He also told them there ‘Was no evidence of conspiracy between. the de- fendant and his associates, and nothing to connect him with the fraudulent making up of the bills. Mr. Stoughton took exception to the charge that the resolution of the Board indicated a design not to perform the duty. Judge Daniels s: (Ba! _ a Me but he left e pu apn is 10 ¢ jury. the constraction The jury retired at 81x 0’ Waiting for the Verdict—A Verdict of “Not Guilty”—Tremendous Excitement in Court, Awonderfal degree of monotony, though with painful anxiety to many and the merest idle curi- osity to others, characterizes waiting for verdicts, The present case was no exception. The re- tirement of the jury only increased the apxiety on the one hand and intensified the curiosity on the other, It was a notable jact, how- ever, that the lingering crowd—and it was a crowd that filled thé court room—was made up of far different material from those waiting 1or the ver- dicts ijn the cases of Tweed, Ingersoll or Genet. ‘This was & most reputable assemblage, and among the multitude could be seen the faces of some of our most worthy and respectable citizens, In the usual way, hardly had the jury withdrawn, when everybody began canvassing the probable verdict, “It will be an acquital or disagreement,” said many a one. Not one was heard to express en opinion that there would bea conviction, And with this foregone conclusion, all waited Patiently the coming in of the jury. Some Walked about in the adjoining rooms and halls smoking qui¢ily their cigara and chatting over ‘the events of tue trial, Most however. remained conferred on” personal friends, talked with them and they with him in the same easy, quiet way as though they were discussing the most ordinary to; of the gs the ciub. “Of course this waiting for the verdict,” the HEBALD reporter remarked to Mr. Hall, “4s to you @ little more tedious than to the reat of us.” “It is certain the crowd inter as though it was not very tedious to them,” he answered Bayly, “Perhaps like the old playgoers, at Brougham’s Lyceum, Who went to see the rather dull drama ‘Waiting for a Verdict,’ they are waiting to see the concluding more agreeable piece, “The Happy Man, “It is to be hoped they will see the happy man, in yourseli,”” answered the reporter. “That's to be wished,” he answered, and then he went on to tell us a somewhat singular circum. Stance 10 his literary career, that some 18 years ago he wrote a story tor Bonner’s Ledger, entitied “The Ohristmas Jurymen.” The story, he explained, comprised a series of stories told by the tweive members of the ny, who, not being able to agree upen a verdict, had been locked up Christmas ive, and, finding that they could not agree, whiled away the time by telling these stories. Alter telling this incident he said that the present was not the first Christmas Eve he had sat up waiting for a verdict. He did this, he remembered distinctly, on the trials of Cancemi and Huntingdon, “but it ‘was a little diferent then,” he added; “i then was the prosecutor, and now I am the prosecuted.” Everybody who knows ex-Mayor Hall is fully aware that no more entertaining conversationalist is to be jound. Anecdote and the sparkle of wit are indigenous to him, He was in the midst of an interesting story, and the talk wus of dramatic matters, of which no one is better posted than he, when it was announced that the jury was coming tu. “I'll finish the story by and by,” he said, pleasantly breaking off his narration ab- ruptly, and then turned round to scan the jury as they took their seats, It was @ few monntes past eight when the Jury came in, It “ whnecestary to state that the ul- most eageri- prevatied to know the result. But the finat it was nov to be announced yet. The, joreman simply asked wf they could britg im one of the two verdicts— @ verdict of simple neglect or one of willul ueg- lect, Judge Daniels told them they could bring in either oi tuese verdicts, and then they retired ain. “A ray of hope,” said one, “A certain disagreement,” exclaimed another. al acquittal sure,” and this was Wuat the most said. It was the general impression that the jury would now bring in a speedy verdiet. But an hour passed, and then two hours, and they had not yet returned, At @ quarter past tea o'clock came the announcement, ‘The jury are coming.” duage Daniels had taken his seat on tue bench, Recorder Hackett sat by his side. Mr. Hail satin nis accustomed place, and his faithrul coun- seland friends were still by his side. All felt as deeply and painfully interested ashe. As the jury took their seats every eye turned upon them to enetrate, if possible, the secret hidden In their earts. Mr, Uall gave each a sharply scrutinizing gaze. “Gentlemen of the jury—Have you agreed upon @ Verdict?” asked Mr, Sparks, the Clerk. “We have,” answered the joreman, and at the announcement a death like stillness pervaded the court room and every head bent forward and every eye looked upon the foreman with increasing in- tensity. “How say you?” proceeded Mr. Sparks. ‘Do you find A. Oakey Hall, the prisoner at the bar, guilty or not gutity 17 “Not guilty,” said the foreman, The scene of excitement that followed cannot be described. United cheers sprang from every throat and united hats and handkerchieis were waved wildly above every head. Judge Daniels rapped order with bis gavel, officers shouted to still the tamult. It was no use. The crowd was pieased wild, uproarious. They coud not and would not be restrained till they had given ex- ression to the exuberance of their joy. ut they soon subsided. All eyes were now directed to Mr. Hall. The great tension had reached its limit. For @ moment his pbys- ical energies gave way. Ue bewed his head upon the table before him. The re- action was too great, There was something "touchingly tender in this scene, and, while every heart was jull of joy, no one for ® momen intruded upon him. Soon he roused him? self, and then came a scene of congratula- tions and handshakings such as has never been witnessed beiore in a court room in thia city. He was fairly besieged; “Happy Christma: greeted him on every hand, greeted his while he still lingered in the court room, greeted clin as he passed Out into the vestibule, aud rung out on the Btill night air, as with his counsel he stepped into his carriage and was whirled trom sight. THE WEST FARMS SCHOCL FIGHT. The Fight Transferred to the Supreme Court—Charges and Counter Charges— An Acrimonious Controversy. The subject matter of the controversy in West Farms over the new school building has already been pretty thoroughly ventilated in the HzRaLp. The fight has not ended by any means, but, having been transferred to the courts, 18 waged on both sides, if anything, with increasing energy ana ani- mosity, A very lively legal skirmish, which at one time threatened to reach the magnitude of a general engagement, took place yesterday before Judge Brady, in Supreme Court, Chambers, Mr, John B, Haskin, the “head and front” in the fight for the new school building, was on hand, and with him a goodly host of supporters, His lawyer, ex-Judge Emott, was also on hand, and evidently eager for the fray, his legal opponent being Mr. John E. Parsons, who in this case represents the imterests of the Corporation Counsel, the latter having, in behalf of the city, instituted the present proceedings, Aa is well known, these proceedings began with obtain- ing, a few days since, a temporary injunction re- straining the West Farms Board of Edacation from removing the furniture from the old school build- ings, from leasing or otherwise disposing of these buildings and using the new building for school purposes. The case came ap yesterday on an order to show cause why this injunction should not be continued, ‘The complaint, which is quite a voluminous docu- ment, recites the act of the Legislature annexin; to New York that part o1 Westchester county, wit! the provision that the property of the school dis- tricts shall be transferred to the Board of Educa- tion of New York; and alleges that in tne jatter part of 1872 the erection of a new schoolhouse ‘was begun near the Harlem ad depot; that the land on which it was erected be- Jonged, until a time shortly prior, to Mr. Haskin, the President of the Board; that he was interested in its sale and conveyance, and that as such President he was disqualified trom selling it for the schoolhouse; that the site was very unsuit- able and the localit; Keene that the Board of Education of West Farms had applied to the New York Board to include in their estimate enough to pay for this schoolhouse; that Mr. Haskin is mak- ing strenuous efforts to impose the schoolhouse upon the Board of Education; is tye! arrange- ments to lease or otherwise dispose of the existing school buildings ana to dismantle them 80 as to make them unsuitable for echool purposes, and to remove the school furniture to the new school- houses. Mr. Fordham Morris, one of the five per- sons appointed by the New York Board of Educa tion to be school trustees for the new district, verifies the statements set forth in the complaint. In opposition Mr. Emott produced a large number of amdavi' among them of Wikiam Meikieham and A. T. Buckhout, Secretary and President of the West Farms Board, setting forth that the action complained of was legal and proper, that Mr. Haskin had not been President of the Board since last May, and that the land when sold or the school, belonged to Judge Tappen, who made aMdavit that he purchased it as a business transaction free from fraud and. collusion, The affidavit, signed by a large number of citizens, was also submitted, setting forth that the new school- house was a very suitabie and necessary building for school purposes, and that the site was a very convenient and bead one. After quite a lengthy argument Judge Brady took the papers, reserving his decision. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. UNITED STATES CiREUIT COURT. The Case of Edward Lange—Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Re- fused. Yesterday the full Court—consisting of Judges Woodraf, Blatchford and Benedict—sat in the United States Circuit Court room, at No, 27 Cham- bers street, for the purpose of hearing argument on the matter of the order calling upon the United States District Attorney, Mn Bliss, to show cause why a writ of certiorari and habeas corpus should not be issued for Edward Lange, who had been re- cently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for illegally converting mail bags to his own use, Mr. Arnoux, counsel on behalf of Lange, pres- ented to the Court the record of the case, which has been frequently published and alluded to in the HERALD report of this matter. The prisoner ‘was sentenced by Judge Benedict to one year’s im- prisonment and to the payment of a fine of $200, Subsequently it was ascertained by the Juage that for the offence in question it was not within his power to Impose fine and imprisonment and that the sentence should have been imprisonment or fine, This sentence was, therefore, recalied by Judge Benedict, and the prisoner was re-sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, But before this new sentence had been imposed the prisoner had complied with the first sentence so far as paying ‘ue dine and serving out five daya of his imprison, ei m the minutes of the Court, he special verdict which the jury a6 render, the sentence of the Court cou! pronounced on one indictment a3 a unit, tothe argument of counsel and the opinion of Judge Davis in the case of William M. Tweed, and cited the declaration of Judge Benedict that there was only one conviction in the case; that his charge to the jury had regard to only one transac- tion, and that he intended, in the sentence, to punish for the commission of one offence only. Bat the defendant claimed that a Judge or Court, sit- ting as a court of review, could not always be bound by the record of the Cler’ im the minutes or the Court where the sentence was imposed, but that the Court might have matters relating to the record and the entries therem brought before it. Counsel further contended that the first sentence be ey Lange was illegal and void, It was the duty of the Court to discharge Lange when the ilegahty of the sentence was established. The alternative was given to the Judge, under the law, either to impose a fine or to imprison, but it was not iegally within his power to do both, — It, therefore, was a grave question whether the effect of @ double sen- tence was to render illegal the whole or only the excess of punishment; and if the latter, what was the excess of punishment? The defendant con- tended that if any part of the sentence could stand then that which was last should stand in prefer- ence to that which was first. If any part of the sentence could stand the infliction of the fine sub- sequent to the imprisonment, the former being, under the law, in full satisfaction of the crime of which Lange had been convicted, must be the whole punishment, as the fine had been offered to and received by the United States in satisiaction of that portion of the sentence. The sentence was, in part, executed, and had become beyond the cun- trol of the Judge who pronounced it, as Lange had been imprisoned under it, and had paid the pen- ality in full, Counsel went on to contend that the power of the Court had been exhansted in the first sentence, and that the second was entirely with- out any jurisdiction. On these grounds the de- fendant was entitied to the writ asked for and to his discharge {rom a wrongiul and illegal confine- iment. Mr. A. H. Purdy, United States Assistant District Attorney, in reply, adverted to the Callicott case, an which he maintained that Judge Woodruff! heid that he had no jurisdiction to review on habeas corpus the judgment of the Circuit Court on a con- viction and sentence on an indictment, on the alie- gation that the statute under which the sentence was inflicted had been repealed before the sen- tence was passed, Counsel urged that the prin- ciples of that case should apply to the present one, aud maintained that the Court had power to re- scind an erroneous sentence and tmpose a new, if, as in the — instance, such a proceeding were had in during the term of the Court within which the prisoner had been tried. THE JUDGMENT. At half-past three o’clock the Judges took their seats upon the bench, when Judge Weodraff de- livered the opinton of the Court as tollows:— We are of opinion that the judgment rendered in this case, it being for a punishment expressly authorized by statute, cannot be impeached under proceedings by habeas corpus, if the Court had jurisdiction to pronounce that judgment, The only groupe apon which that jurisdiction is questioned that the Court had, upon a previous day in the game term, pronounced judgment imposing a dif- ferent punishment, That former judgment had been vacated by order of the Court. Ifthe Court had power to vacate that juagment it became of no etlect, and it was the duty of the Court to proceed to deal with the hg upon his conviction of the offence charged in the indictment. That the Court had such power is, we think, estaolished by the authorities referred to on the argu- ment. ‘The Court having such power during the same term, the former thertgslad 18 to be regarded as being subject to the exercise of such power by the Court, if required by the ends of justice. Any mconventence to the prisoner wrought thereby 18 to be regarded as one Of the incidents to the administration of justice, arising from the —. oecurrence of error or irregularity, and such lormer judgment being con- fessedly wholly illegal, what was done under it can have no effect to take away the jurisdiction of the Court sei hnnge at the same time to @ legal sen- tence. ‘e are, therefore, 01 opinion that the pris- oner is not devrived of his liberty in contravention of the constitution or laws of the (United States, and that i! he were beiore us oa the writ prayed Jor we should be competied w remaud t ne custody in which now is, The appilcation 1s, therefore, retused. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBEAS. Decisions. By Judge Ingraham. Lienan vs. Southside Raiiroad Company et al.— Motion denied, Kreiter et al, va. Bank for Savings in City of New York.—Motion to appoint a guardian ad litem is granted, e memorandum. ) Nichols vs. Jenkins et al.—Motion denied. memorandum.) Guischard vs. Guischard.—Allowed to defendant for her defence the sum of $100. If she can dis- prove the charge agamst ner she May renew the motion for alimony. ‘The Tuttle & Bailey Manufacturing Company vs. Board of Estimates.—Motion denied. (See memo- randum.) By Judge Brady. Jay vs. De Groot.—Order granted. Wood and another vs. Hale et al.—Order granted. SUPREME COURT—CIRCUIT—PABT 2. By Judge Van Brunt. Maryland Coal Company vs. Edwards; Stedham Vs. shannaham.—Oases settied, SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions, By Judge Freedman. Black vs. White.—Aliowance of $250 granted to aefendant. Henderson vs, Henderson.—Report confirmed and judgment of divorce granted, Slicht vs. Reazelman.—Motion denied with $10 costs, Oakley vs. The Mayor, &e,; Brown vs, Northrup; Freeman vs. Rathnan; Mayor vs. Waugh.—Orders granted. By Judge Sedgwick. Boyle vs. The Mayor, &c.—Findings sion signed, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—TRIAL TERM—PART |, Getting Befogged Over a Foggy Subject. Before Judge Lasremore, The suit brought by Thompson & Co, against ‘William S. Fogg, and not against Mr. S. Fogg, was to compel the payment of a bill for feathers bought by Wilham 8S. Fogg of Thompson & Co, Payment was resisted on the ground that the featners were “loaded,” and the verdict was as stated. From the previous report the impression would be that Mr. Fogg sold the feathers instead of being the purchaser. ~ COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS. The Escape of Sharkey—Commencement of the Trial of “Magg@>” Jourdan—A Jury Empanellied—The Case To Be Re- sumed on Monday. Before Recorder Hackett. The case of Margaret or ‘‘Maggie” Jourdan, who 1s jointly indicted with Sarah Alien and Lawrence Phillips for conspiring to effect the escape of Wil- liam J. Sharkey, @ convicted murderer, from the Tombs, was on yesterday’s calendar, Assistant District Attorney Russell said that he had every reason to believe he was ready to proceea with the trial, but he discovered that an important witness (Mrs. Broderick) was absent. She left the city to visit her friends in Penn- sylvania, but would return before Monday. Ex-Judge Beach, the prisoner’s counsel, made an urgent appeal that the case might proceed, stating that the accused was suffering {rom ill health, : His Honor directed that the trial should proceed, re- marking that he would adjourn the case when a jury was procured until the witness returned, The ‘whole of the day was occupied in examining jurors as to their competency to give “Maggie” a fair and impartial trial, Messrs. Beach, Howe and Mott conducting the/examination. A large number of jurors were excused because they had formed an ““mpression’”’ that the prisoner was guilty from what they read in the newspapers, Sul the names of the and conclu- F, Martinez, artist, No. 82 Charles H. Medicus, Ape ee No. 340 East Forty- ninth street; Moses Hell , laces, No. 318 East Ninth street; Lyle Reid, machinist, No. 155 East 116th street; John Jennings, builder, No. 609 East Eighteenth street; John ‘an, box No, 44 nec street; Patrick Moore, liquors, No. 403 East Houston street; Joh lofitt, sculptor, No, 359 West Nineteenth street; John’k. Comlies, clerk, No. 846 Lexington avenue; Frederick Sturgis, tea, No. 86 Park avenue. Before discharging the jurors His Honor the Re- corder particularly cautioned them not to permit any person to converse with them upon the suv- ject matter of the tria!, whereupon the Coart ad- journed uli Monday next, when Assistant District Attorney Russell will open the case and the trial will proceed. . TOMBS POLICE COURT. Before Justice Morgan. Frederick 8. Pincus, @ merchant, doing business at Nos, 87 and 89 Leonard street, appeared before Judge Morgan, at the Tombs Pelice Court, and preferred @ complaint against Charles Ammon, alli d Morris Rosenthal, whom charges Wits havins forged a letter Of credit to himself and purporting to emanate’ from 8. Fletschauer, or a eH fy Ce if rison the sum 0! pene Mir. Pincu on presentation, advanced taining its character he pro- Cirest of the -Dsisoners by Oshcer WasuINnarTon, Dec. 24, 1878. No. 477. Knowles vs. Logansport Gaslight Com- pany—Error to the Circuit Court for Minnesota.— This is an action by the company to recover on ® judgment obtained in Indiana, The defence was want of jurisdiction of the person of Knowles in the Indiana case, and the return of the certifying service of summons, but not where it was served, having been admitted as dence of service against defendanv’s ol ; he brings the ruling bere, and raises tno teeing: questions:—Was the certificate of service received as evidence of juris*iction, and, if 90, cam it be contradicted on the trial of tue action? The further question is raised, If service is made in an action for $8,000, does that give jurisdiction to render judgment for more than that sum? mitted under the twentieth rule. H. R. Bigelow for plaintuf in error; F, R. E, Cornell for de- fendant, No. 169, Buckley vs. United States—Appeal from the Court of Claims.—This is another sult for damages for an alleged violation of a contract made with the government for transportation of military stores, The Court below found that the government having simply failed to produce the amount of stores for transportation which were contracted for, were not guilty of a violation of the entire scope of the contract, and therejore refused the claimant damages for the proiits of the con- tract lost in consequence of such failure, bat ailowed him the amount of the expense he had incurred in preparing for the transportation. It was, however, held that he had not Epes proven the amount of such expense, and the iL Was therefore dismissed. From this decision the claimant appeals, insisting that he should have dumages jor his loss of profits on the contract. The government submits that the decision below was correct, Durant and Homer for the claimant; C. H. Hill for the government, No, 542, McCarty vs, Mann et al.—Appeal from the Circuit Court for Minnesota,—This was an ac- tion to quiet title to certain vacant and unoccupied lands in St. Paul, brought by the appellant. The appellees claim, under a conveyance from the pat- entee, made prior to his patent; and as the appel- lant disputes the validity of the entry of the pat- entee, the question arises whether an act of Con- gress reinstating an entry made by the patentee, which had been cancelled by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, so that the tittle im said lands may inure to the benefit of his grantees, 80 far as he may have conveyed the same, is such @ recognition and ratification of the original entry as Will sustain the title of his grantees, made In arsuance of such entry, and whica is in the appel- ees. The appellant maintains that the patentee had no title until after his entry under the 8) act, and that if this be so he (appellant) has the better title, deriyed trom the grantees, who took trom him immediately thereafter, and that the act did not renew an oid titie in the patentee, but created a new one. Submitted under the twentieth rule. W. P. Clough for appellant; H, I, Horn for appellees, No. 134. Sohn vs, Waterson et al.—Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Kansas.—This waa an action on a judgment recovered 1n Ohio against the defendants in 1854. The defence was the stat- ute of limitations of the Territory of Kansas (the defendant Waterson being, when the sult waa brought and the act was passed, a resident there) passed in 1859, providing that all actions founded on contracts, notes, bonds, judgments, &c., upon which liability accrued beyoud the limits of the Territory, shoula be commenced within two years next alter the cause of action accrued. The teeter replied that the statute did not apply 8 case, because it was passed after his cause 0! action accrued. The Court held that as Waterson Was @ resident of Kansas when the Territorial act weat into operation, the limitation began to run from that period, and thafas the action was not commenced within two years after, it could not be sustained, This judgment is sustained here, the Court holding that the act was prospective in ita operation, and affected existing causes of action only irom the time of its passage. Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion. No. 676. Sawyer vs, Hoag—Appeal from the Cir- cuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois.—In this case it is held that a debtor of an insolvent cannot purcnase claims against his creditor having full knowledge of the insoivency and have them set offat their full value against his indebtedness to the insolvent, and the decree below enforcing the same view is affirmed. Sawyer subscribed to the capital stock of the Lumberman’s Insurance Com." pany upon an understanding that 85 per cent would be loaned back to him upon a secured note for the amount. The insurance company oecoming insolvent after the great fire in Chicago Sawyer bought up adjusted claims against the company and sought to have them set off against his in- debtedness on the note. The decision treats him as an ordinary debtor of the company and holds that the set off cannot be allowed. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion, This decision also disposes of cases 579, Jaegar vs. Voeke, and 586, Meyer vs. Voeke, and the decrees in those cases are ailirmed. No. 165. Solomons vs. the United States—Appeal from the Court of Claims.—Solomons was under & contract with the government to furnish a certain quantity of corn within a certain time, and de- livered about three-fourths of it within the time fixed. Subsequently a quartermaster agreed to accept a further quantity under the contract if de- livered within another limited time. The amount was delivered anda voucher given. A part of it was used anda part damaged while lying in the fort, The department subsequently refused to pay for poenaa not used, on the ground that the contract ad expired and could not be extended by verbal agreement. The voucher was accordingly red fo Egon aly Ceere and Cape semaae elow sustained the department, an ju nt is here reversed, and the cause remanded with rections to enter a judgment for the amount of voucher, the Court finding that the time was ex- tended ‘verbally and that such agreement was valid. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion. No. 480. Town of Ohio vs. Marcy—Error to Cireuit Court for the Northern district of Illinois.—This was an action on municipal bonds issued by the town, and the defence was that they were not — issued by the road for which the subscription was made, but to a consolidated road subsequentiy chartered. jor the holder of the bonds, and the case was brought here or review; but the Court say, oes the question of law raised is not presented in the record, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed, Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion. No. 94, Wilson, assignee, vs. City Bank of [Telegraphed for publication on Tuesday, being then inadvertently omitted.) Mr. Justice Miller also delivered the crn if ‘Ste i the fact No. 468 County of St. Clair va. Livingstone. 4 Error to Supreme Court of Illinois,—! ry y want of jurisdiction, No. 596. Ex parte Robinson—Error to the Circuit Court for the Kastern district of Arkansas.—Motion | to advance denied. i} No. 666. Hodges vs. Vaughan—Error to the Dis- trict Court for the Western district of Arkansas, Motion for certiorari denied. No. 154, Hall et al. vs. Jordon—Error to the Su preme Court of Tennessee.—AMrmed, with 10 per centdamages, FIRE OOMMISSIONERS, 4 A New Battalion Organized for the Twen=. ty-third and Twenty-foarth Wards. The Fire Commisstoners met yesterday Commissioner Perley in tne chair. Various The judgment on the facts found waa © * fs f aa munications, applications for appointment, &c., — were referred to the appropriate committees, Re-~ ports of various chieis of bureaus were aubmitted, — one of which announced the sale of 16 condemned horses. Approved. sale of condemned engines and boilers. Con im. A report was read in regard to the condition of the Fire Department of M¢ fn Mirdos Ke = Teal estate was stated at 0 to organize before the 15th a new (the Ten talion, to he composed of 60 firemen and for the Twenty-tuird and Twenty-fourth the battalion to be divided into eight: each commanded by an assistant foreman, companies on duty until po ago working order, Perley said, in answer 20 the question of a of the HERALD, that the members of the talion would be appointed from the 1 Kiet disposing of some unimportant er the Commissioners adjourned, PARK COMMISSIONERS, Special Meeting on Tuesday , A Number of Reappointments, : eR The Park Commissioners held a speciat late on Tuesday evening, Mr. Wales, the dent, in the chair, It was decided to lay streets of the southwestern portion of 1 number of the iit