People v. McKane

The court of oyer and terminer, at which the defendant was indicted, was held in pursuance of an appointment made by the governor. Section 234 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “the governor may, when, in his opinion, the public interest so requires, appoint one or more extraordinary general or special terms of the supreme court, or terms of a circuit court, or court of oyer and terminer.” The language of the governor’s appointment is: “I do hereby appoint an extraordinary court of oyer and terminer to be held,” etc. The counsel for the appellant urges that the power to appoint an extraordinary term of the court of oyer and terminer is not complied with by appointing an extraordinary court of oyer and terminer, and that no power exists to appoint such extraordinary court, and herice that the appointment was a nullity, and all that has been done under it void. We do not think this contention valid—it is based upon a verbal difference between the form of the statute and the form of the appointment—but there is no mistaking the fact that the governor intended to appoint, and did in fact appoint, an extraordinary term of the court of oyer and terminer. If the language of the appointment is susceptible of two constructions, that one must be preferred which validates the appointment, instead of that which invalidates it.

The defendant moved to set aside the indictment upon the ground that the grand jury of the county of Kings, lawfully impaneled by the court of sessions, was in session from December 4 to December 30, 1893, during which time the grand jury for this extraordinary term of the court of oyer and terminer, which found the indictment against the defendant, was in session; the contention being that while one grand jury is in session another cannot be convened.

Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “a grand jury must be drawn for every term of the following courts: * * * the court of sessions of the county of Kings.” Section 226 provides that “a grand jury may also be drawn for the court of oyer and terminer of the county of Kings, upon the order of a judge of the supreme court elected in the second judi

The defendant demurred to the indictment, in that it did not contain a plain and concise statement of the things constituting the alleged crime. This defect is alleged to exist in the statement of the acts charged to have been committed by the inspectors. The crime charged in the first count of the indictment is ’“ willfully violating a provision of the election law relative to the registration of electors.” Section 41c of the Penal Code provides that: “Any member or clerk of the registry board who willfully violates any provision of the election law relative to the registration of electors or willfully neglects or refuses to perform any duty imposed on him by law or is guilty of any fraud in the execution of the duties of his office shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than two or more than ten years.”

Thus the crime charged in the indictment is a crime specified in the statute. The defendant McKane, however, was neither a member nor a clerk of the registry board. But § 29 provides : “A person concerned in the commission of a crime, whether he directly commits the acts constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission, and whether present or absent, and a person who directly or indirectly counsels, commands, induces or procures another to commit a crime is a principal.”

Hence it follows that, if any member or clerk of the registry board of the first election district willfully violated any provision of the election law relative to the registration of electors, and the defendant McKane aided and abetted m such violation, whether he himself was present or absent, or if he directly or indirectly counseled, commanded, induced, or procured any member or clerk of the registry board to commit such willful violations, he (McKane) Was guilty of the same violation, not as an accessory, but as a principal. The objection that the crime defined in § 41c is therein limited to the officers composing and assisting the registry board, aud therefore cannot embrace the defendant McKane, is clearly met by § 29, which, by the aptness aud comprehensiveness of its terms, includes those who have aided and abetted the violation of the law, or counseled, commanded, induced or procured its violation by the officers charged with its administration. "Section 29 makes the acts in the offense of the offender a test of his crime. The action in the indictment being a crime defined by the statute, it remains to be seen whether the charge against the defendant constituted a crime whereof he is accused.

Clearly, under the two sections of the Penal Code just cited, the specifications should allege that some clerk or members of the registry board did some act or acts which amounted to a willful violation of some provision of the election'law relative to the registration of electors, and that the defendant McKane aided and abetted or counseled, commanded, induced, or procured the officers, or some one or more of them, to do these acts. Prom the nature

The indictment alleges that the inspectors composing the board of registry did make and complete a certified and original list of persons qualified to vote in the first election district at the next general election. It does not allege that they made any certified copies, but it does allege that they did willfully and knowingly neglect and refuse to have such list of registry of voters, and three certified copies thereof, accessible at all hours to the public for examination, and for making copies thereof. The defendant urges that, because it is not alleged that these copies were made, therefore it could not be alleged that any one or all of them fcere withheld or concealed. It may be literally true that a nonexisting paper cannot be concealed, but it is also true that an effective way to withhold a paper, which the law commands to be copied and accessible, is to refuse to make it. It is withholding its accessibility by withholding its existence. Proof that it was not made would tend, in connection with other circumstances, to support the allegation that the inspectors refused to have it accessible. The defendant also contends that the registration was not completed, and therefore the subsequent withholding or concealment of the list and copies was not a violation of any provision of the law “relative to registration.” But the law requires the registration to be made, and one copy posted, and the original list and two copies to be otherwise accessible to the public. Thus the publicity of the registry is an essential feature of the law “ relative to the registration of electors.” 'The publicity of the registry may be subsequent to the mere act of registration, but, the law relative to registration provides for its publicity, to the end that the registration shall have all the beneficial association publicity can give it, and all the safeguards for verity and fairness which a jealous and vigilant public scrutiny can secure. The law relative to the reg

The indictment then proceeded to specify, in connection with the crime of the inspectors, how the defendant McKane was concerned in the commission of the crime ; and he said John Y. McKane did, then and there, feloniously, unlawfully, and knowingly counsel, command, induce and procure, aid and abet the said John W. Murphy, Morton Morris, and John H. Brownhill to so neglect and refuse to have such list and registry of voters, and three certified copies thereof, at all seasonable hours, accessible to the public for examination, and for making cbpies ¿hereof. The indictment then further alleges that the defendant McKane and the defendants the inspectors did feloniously and willfully cause and procure that the said list of registry of voters, and three certified copies thereof, and each of them, should not be accessible to the public for examination, or for making copies thereof, but should be concealed from the public, whether for examination or for making copies thereof. The defendant does not contend that the acts which charged against him aiding and abetting, commanding, inducing, and procuring are not sufficiently alleged. The second count of the indictment differs from the first only in charging the crime ; the specification of the facts constituting it is the same as in the first count. The second count charged the crime as follows: “And the grand jury aforesaid, by this indictment, do further accuse the said John Y. McKane, J. W. Murphy, Morton Morris, and John H. Brownhill, and the said Murphy, Morris, and Brownhill being members of the registry board, of the crime of willfully neglecting and refusing to perform the duties imposed upon them, the said Murphy, Morris, and Brownhill, by law, as members'of the registry board,” etc.

The learned counsel for the defense insists that, since the statute requires the chairman of the inspectors to take into-his custody the original registry list, and each of the other inspectors to take into his custody one of the certified copies, all of which shall be accessible to the public, and that, if the crime proved bad been the concealment by one inspector only of this list, without participation by the others, then such crime would not be neglect of duty by the inspectors as members of a registry board, as charged in the indictment, but of the offending inspector only, and, therefore, if the defendant McKane did aid and- abet him, he would not be guilty of the crime whereof he was accused, but of some other crime.

Theoretically, this may be conceded, but the concession would not go to the sufficiency of the indictment, but. to the sufficiency of the proof of the general crime charged in the indictment. The trial court, at the request of the defendant’s counsel, charged the jury “ that, although the jury may be satisfied that the defendant was guilty of other crimes or violation of the election law, it is their duty to acquit unless they find him guilty of the particular crime charged in the indictment.” The court also instructed the ■jury that their first duty was to determine whether the guilt of

The evidence on the part of the people was directed to show that the keeping of the registry list inaccessible to the public was the common purpose and act of all the inspectors. We conclude that the suggestion of error arising from the possible guilt of one inspector, and the innocence of the others, presents a hypothetical, and not an actual, case before us. The defendant specified, as a further ground for the demurrer, that more than one crime is charged in the indictment.” The indictment thus clearly shows that each inspector is not charged with a separate crime, in addition to the joint crime in which the defendant McKane is charged with participating. Of course, the charge of a joint commission of crime implies the charge of the individual one of each person joined in the charge, and, in a proper case, may admit of the conviction of one and the acquittal of another defendant. But this is not to charge two separate crimes against one defendant, but to charge one crime against two or more defendants.

This indictment contains three connts. The facts constituting the crime are the same in each. The crime charged in the first count is the willful violation of the election law relative to registration ; in the second count, the willful neglect or refusal to perform a duty imposed by law; and, in the third, the. willful commission by the inspectors of a fraud in the execution of the duties of .their office. Section 41c of the Penal Code, above quoted, groups these three crimes together. It is possible that cases may arise in which the distinction between these crimes will be clearly apparent. Upon the trial, it was thought that the facts charged as constituting the crime were less clearly to the enumeration of crime found, and the first and second, and then the third, counts, were abandoned as unnecessary. The distinction between the two crimes charged in the first and second counts is not here clearly seen. The willful violation of law and the willful neglect to obey it, must be different forms of stating the same substance, since both may result from the same acts. Such is the case here. Section 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aptly meets such a case. It provides: “ Where the acts complained of may constitute different crimes, such different crimes may be charged in separate counts.” There are many exceptions to the warrants of the court upon the admission of evidence. The learned counsel for the defendant, in pressing these exceptions upon our notice, practically ignores the fact or theory of the conspiracy upon which the people presented their case upon the trial, and the rules applicable in cases of conspiracy under which the trial court admitted much of the evidence excepted to.

The theory of the people was that the defendant McKane, and

If such a conspiracy was shown to exist, then the acts and declarations of any of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy was admissible in evidence against the defendant McKane, one of the members of it. It is not necessary that the co-conspirator, whose acts and declarations in furtherance of the ends of the conspiracy are offered in evidence, should be a party to the record. It'is plain that the indictment or indictments of the conspirator, whose acts and declarations are offered against his fellow, Can neither impart any quality of verity or of relevancy to such acts and declaration, nor withdraw it from them; hence his inclusion or exclusion as a party to. the indictment is not material. The evidence given tending to prove the conspiracy was circumstantial in its character, from the very nature of it. Part of the evidence tending to prove a conspiracy tended also to prove what the conspirators did in furtherance of it. While the general rule is that a conspiracy must be shown before the acts and declarations of the conspirators, and other than the defendant upon trial, can be admitted in evidence, yet this rule, wisely framed for the protection of the defendant, is not so urged as to require a sacrifice of truth and substance to matters of form, in order to forbid the trial judge to receive evidence in such order or to such extent as will develop as clearly as possible the whole truth. It may well be that the whole story must be told before the court or jury can be sufficiently instructed to pass definitely upon the preliminary fact, the conspiracy itself. The narrative all told, it may yet be such a disputed question that the defendant is entitled to have the jury pass upon it. It may, therefore, in order that justice be stated at the threshold of the trial, be left entirely to the discretion of the trial court to determine as to the order of proofs.

We must look at the whole evidence to see whether fact of the conspiracy was sufficiently proved to justify the admission of the acts and declarations of the defendant co-conspirators as part of the very res gestee of the attempted execution of tbe conspiracy itself. We can undertake to present here but the mere skeleton of the propositions of fact by which the inference or the existence of the conspiracy was sought to be conclusively implanted in the minds of the court and jury, and will show the reason for the admission of the several masses of circumstantial testimony, so as to realize its wonderful force.

2. The means and ability of McKane to form such a conspiracy embraced a mass of facts tending to show his extraordinary political, official, and unofficial power in the affairs of his town and townsmen, and his relations with, and influence over, the alleged conspiracy.

3. Especially was his opportunity to form such a conspiracy increased by the fact that the six election districts of the town were so laid out'that every one of them embraced a part of the town hall building wherein was located the registration office and polling place of every district.

4. It was shown that the registration lists in all the districts were kept inaccessible to Mr. Gaynor and his agents, despite their repeated and persistent efforts to obtain access to them or to some official copy of them. Their efforts to obtain access, and the means by which their efforts were baffled, tend to suggest the inquiry,—and possibly to answer it,—by whom were these things instigated, counseled, and abetted, and for what purpose, and how wide must the conspiracy have been, to have been so successful?

5. Mr. Gaynor, finding obstacles to his inspection of the registry lists, apparently interposed by McKane, vigorously asserted and prosecuted his clear right to the inspection of them, in spite and in contempt of McKane and his power. This action by Mr. Gay-nor seems to have provoked McKane; his power and prestige were threatened, and, it is -not impossible, his sense of the enormity of the crime was obscured by his ambition to maintain his supremacy.

It is also proper to observe that the people sought to show: (1) That Mr. Gaynor’s agents, upon inquiry and inspection at the poliing places in the town hall, did not find any lists posted where they could examine them. (2) That, upon inquiry of the single policeman in charge, they were informed that McKane’s orders for inspection must first be obtained. (3) That McKane, upon being-informed that such obstruction existed, assumed responsibility for it, and promised to remedy it. (4) That McKane did not keep his promise; warned Mr. Gaynor that he would have a hard job of it. (5) That Mr. Gaynor notified McKane in writing that he should send the necessary men to Gravesend to copy the rolls. (6) That thereupon pretended copyists were selected from subordinates of the appellant or defendant, upon his power as chief of police, to monopolize the poll lists, so as to keep them inaccessible to Mr. Gaynor’s agents. (7) That the pretended copyists, acting immediately under the direction of one Sutherland, a justice of the peace, and member of the board of police of Gravesend, did, at the town hall, by pretending to make copies, keep the lists inaccessible to* Mr. Gaynor’s copyists, who made repeated at

Reference should be made to some of the evidence tending to show the belief in the ability of the defendant to cause the making of false return. We can readily understand, as we proceed with the examination of the record, the corroboration which one series of facts gives to another. The relation which existed between the facts, at first disconnected and remote, form each their motive and explanation for considerable of the conspiracy., their apparent in-consequence and irrelevance, if considered apart by themselves,

We will now notice the exceptions to the admission of evidence. It was shown that the defendant was a supervisor of his town, chief of the police, chairman of the board, and its treasurer. The people were permitted to prove, the defendant objecting as immaterial and irrelevant, that, in his capacity as supervisor, the defendant was one of the members of the health board of the town, and its chairman. This board was charged with the construction of sewers in the town. The defendant was asked, upon his cross-examination, the extent to which the health board had constructed sewers in the town, and the debt created thereby. It may have been too trifling to be of significance. The answer was that the debt created for the purpose was between $40(1,000 and $500,000. The witness Veorhees was general clerk and commissioner of investment of moneys from sale of the common lands of the town. He was asked, defendant objecting, to what officer he paid over the moneys received by him from the investment. Ho answered, to the defendant, as supervisor. Asked as to the amount, defendant’s objecting overruled, he answered that he paid him about $200,000. These facts were relative to the question of the defendant’s influence and power. It certainly was material to show what these were. Of course, the charge against defendant implied his possession of them in a very high degree. The facts thus may have been extraneous to the crime charged, but not extraneous to his power and means to commit it. The jury would have been justified in accquitting the defendant, if, upon the whole evidence, they had had a reasonable doubt of his possession of sufficient power and influence among the inspectors and their assistants to form and manage such a conspiracy. This became a prime factor in the people’s case, and the evidence under question was relevant, .just as, with a watchman, his being an habitual drunkard might be relevant in questioning as to his care in managing his watch, or being an expert penman might be relevant to the question of his ability to commit a forgery, ór, with an alleged poisoner, it might be relevant, as a medical student, attending lectures upon medicine, as evidence. People v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423 ; 49 St. Rep. 751 . The evidence of the division of the town of Gravesend, in 1890, into six election districts, so formed that the town-hall building covered part of each one of them, and still so continued, was relevant to the jlact that the place was favorable to the formation and execution of the alleged conspiracy. It was objected that, in1 this respect, the evidence should be limited to the first election district. Aside from the propriety of describing the locality as it actually was, it is clear that the conspiracy charged, in order to attain its complete ends, must embrace all of the election districts of the town. That the defendant was the deviser of this plan of election districts was, in connection with its adoption, relevant to the question of his alleged power in

The people were permitted to give testimony, over defendant’s objection, tending to show he had used his official powers to the benefit of several of the Republican watchers at the general election in 1893.- One of them was shown to have been awarded by the town board, of which the defendant was the chairman, the contract, still in force, for the electric public lighting, amounting to upwards of $50,000, and that all the other Republican watchers, —sundry policemen and others, saloonkeepers having a license, and others,—were engaged in business in which the favor of the police might be desirable. It was part of the people’s case to prove that the Republican watchers were either in the conspiracy to keep the registry lists inaccessible upon election day to Mr. Graynor’s agents, or that they co-operated to that end. McKane was known to be a Democrat, but a Democrat who, for personal reasons, sometimes caused or permitted the vote of the town to be returned for the Republican candidates. The obligations under which the Republican watchers at this election were to him, and his official power over that, as well as other means of livelihood, where facts relevant to the probability of their co-operation with him in the conspiracy. His facility for shifting his power from one to another, and the fact that personal likes and dislikes influenced him, were not irrelevant in this respect. The people were permitted to put in evidence the poll list copied at the general election for 1893 in the six election districts of the town, and also the registry lists for 1893 of the persons qualified to vote in the same districts, as prepared and certified by the inspectors. Also, the poll lists for the second, third, fourth, and sixth districts for the year 1892. The defendant objected to these several lists as irrelevant and incompetent evidence of the facts. The poll lists of 1893, being official records of the votes actually cast, or recorded as cast, when compared with the registry lists of the same election, were material upon the question of the fraudulent character of the registry list, and thus upon the question of the motive for keeping the registry lists inaccessible. Thus, comparison shows that many persons whose names are in alphabetical order upon the registry lists are recorded upon the poll lists as voting in the same order. Thus the names of Ring, Rich, Richardson, Rich, Rickter, Rilly, Rigna, Rurnph, stand in the order here given upon the registry list of the first district. The same names are found upon the poll list in the same order, and as voting ballots numbered respectively 79, 80, 81, 82, 83. 84, 85 and 86.

This remarkable coincidence of sequence on both registry and poll lists touches in striking light the question of honesty of construction of the registry and poll lists and the returns. A false registry list is an obvious precedent of a false poll list, and a false return of the election. The example given is an example to

The registry lists for 1893 contain 6,580 names of electors of the town. Upon the question of motive, it is material to show that that number was too great. The People placed in evidence the official enumeration of inhabitants of the town of Gravesend taken February 12, 1892, pursuant to chapter 5, Laws 1892, showing the whole number of inhabitants to have then been 8,343. This casts some light upon the question. It is not necessary that the light should be of absolute clearness and exactness in order to be admissible. What is said hereafter in regard to the admission of the electon returns is applicable to the admission of the census returns. The authorities are to the effect that the courts take notice of the population of the political divisions. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 456; Farley v. McConnell, 7 Lans. 428 ; 52 N. Y. 630 ; Merz v. City of Brooklyn, 33 St Rep. 577 ; 11 N. Y. Supp. 778 ; 128

As a general rule no better evidence of the results of an' election is obtainable than the official returns offered. If the several clerks and inspectors were wanted as witnesses, they could not be expected to do more than to verify the accuracy of the returns. In case of the injunction of quo warranto, the returns are presumed to be true until shown to be false. People v. Minck, 21 N. Y. 539 ; People v. Thacher, 55 N. Y. 535 . The defendant urges that the real efforts of the people in placing in evidence the lists and returns of the first election district for the year 1893 was to show that the defendant had been guilty in former years of falsifying the vote and returns. As they were admissible for legitimate purposes, the most the defendant could do was to ask such directions as would limit their effect to such purposes. Witness Mansfield testified that he went to the town hall, in company with witness Masterson, at request of Mr. Mayer, in interest of Mr. Graynor, October 22d, in order to take copy of the registry lists. These lists ought then to have been accessible in the hall. They found a man, apparently a policeman, in charge. They told him they wanted to obtain a copy of the lists. The man told them they could not have it without an order from McKane. They saw no lists, and of course obtained no copies. They returned to Brooklyn and reported to Mr. Mayer what had occurred. The people then proved by Mr. Mayer that on Monday, the 30th, he met the .defendant in Brooklyn, and said to him what Mansfield and Master-son had said, as above stated. The defendant then said, among other things : “I gave the man those orders.” And added : “If you want a copy of the list, why, certainly you can have it.” The statement made by the policeman to Mansfield and Masterson was objected to. The defendant insists that the policeman should have been called as a witness, but, when the defendant said, “ I gave the man his orders,”, it is plain he adopted as his own the

In the same conversation between Mr. Mayer and the defendant, Mayer testified the defendant said : “You can have a copy of this list. I will give you such an order. I will do more. I will see Murphy, and have him telephone down to tell the man to give you a copy of the list. Murphy saw the defendant, was then in the defendant’s employ, and was one of the inspectors of the first election district. Mayer testified that on the same afternoon he met Murphy in the defendant’s office in Brooklyn, and asked him: “Did McKane give you an order for me to get copies of the registry list of Gravesend? Murphy answered: “No.” Mayer: “Did. he tell you to telephone to the town hall to have the man in charge there to copy this list?” Murphy: “No.” Mayer: “Please call his attention to it. He just promised me to do that on the street." The defendant was absent. Objection to the conversation last quoted was upon that ground. The conversation was admissible. Mayer was now prosecuting his quest for the list through Murphy, the inspector who ought to help him, and whom McKane had promised to render serviceable. It was important for Mayer to find out whether Murphy would help him, and the direct way was to ask him. So far as 'Murphy was concerned, he was constituting his obstruction. Mayer incidentally obtained this information by asking him if McKane had given him orders. If the whole- point of this testimony had been to prove that McKane did not give orders, an objection perhaps would be valid; but the whole conversation is pertinent to the question of Murphy’s guilt. It tends tó show that he was persevering in the refusal to act without an order from McKane.

Mr. Mayer further testified that still later in the same afternoon, in his own office, Mr. Gaynor and the defendant Murphy being present, and McKane absent, Murphy sa,id ; “Mr. Mayer, you aremistaken. McKane did not say he would give you an order.” Mayer: “He certainly did say so.” Gaynor: “What do you mean by saying I cannot have a copy of those registry lists without an order from McKane ? Anybody can copy these lists, and I am going to have a copy of them.” Murphy: “We aren’t going to let everybody that comes down there copy these lists. We do not know if everjffiody is a friend or foe, or a thief. McKane says he will have a copy of the lists made and given to you.” Gay-nor : “I do not want such a copy. I am going to have my own copy. I am going to have a copy that can be sworn to in court.” These declarations of defendant Murphy were thus acts of obstruction. He has thus opposed Mayer and Gaynor in their efforts to

Three orders were granted by Justice Cullen on November 1 —one directed to the inspectors of the first election district, and the others to the inspectors of the fourth and fifth — to show cause, in the supreme court the following day, why a peremptory mandamus which required them to allow Mr. Gaynor and his agents to inspect and copy the registry list in each district was not regarded. The witness Shananan testified that he served the papers for the fourth district upon G. Morris and Tuttle, two of the inspectors for that district; that, in making the service upon Morris, he told him what the papers were, and that he had j ust served Mr. Tuttle, and that “he told me that he was going to hand the papers to Mr. McKane.’’ This remark of the witness was made in response to the question, “What did you then say to him ? meaning when he served the papers upon him. Objected to as immaterial and incompetent. Court: “I think what he said may be taken to note what the inspector said to him.” This remark was made by the court plainly upon the correct theory that it was proper to receive evidence that the inspectors were at the time, and by the service of the papers, fully advised of the desire of Mr. Gaynor to obtain access to the registry lists. The witness, in answering the question, introduced, among other matters strictly within the warrant of the court, this statement of what inspector Tuttle had said. That statement, though materially within the warrant of the court, was not within the spirit of the warrant. It was for the counsel of the defendant to move to strike it out, if he was not contented with it. This he did not do. To urge as an error now this casual, incompetent statement of the witness, unexpectedly made, but which at the time was not deemed important enough to suggest the motion to strike it out, ought not to be tolerated unless justice plainly requires it. It appears from the evidence that McKane had assisted in resisting these applications for a mandamus, and it does not seem to be material whether he did so upon the papers served upon Mr. Tuttle or some other inspector. His assistance in defending the inspectors with their consent is shown. Mr. Tuttle’s remark that he would take one step in the transaction becomes unimportant in the presence of the evidence that the other steps he did take embrace this one and many more.

The admissibility of Mr. Grout's testimony as to the conversation over the telephone with a person whom he supposed to be McKane depended upon the preliminary fact that such a person

Mr. Mayer, in the interest of Mr. Gaynor, went to the Graves-end town hall, October 31st, with twelve copyists, with the view of obtaining copies of the registry list. He described the manner in which his friends were obstructed and baffled. He was corroborated by other witnesses. It is enough to say, without going into details, that the obstructive tactics seem to have been systematic and successful. The defendant was absent, but evidence certainly was admissible as tending to imply the existence of a conspiracy, and to show the acts and declarations of the conspirators and their agents in furtherance of it.

Mr. Mayer on the same day visited Mr. Johnson, one of the inspectors of the sixth district, at his house in Gravesend, and formally demanded of him the copy of the list which ought to have been in his possession. It was not produced. Why not? Was it because he also was in the conspiracy? Mr. Mayer also weut to the house of Mr. Cropsey, another inspector of the same district. He did not see Mr. Cropsey, but he inquired of a woman in charge of the house, stating his business, and asking permission to see list. The woman answered she knew Mr. Cropsey to be an inspector; further answered he was absent, and she knew nothing about the matter. Mr. Mayer testified to an interview substantially similar at the house of Mr. Crandall, another inspeetor for the sixth district. Mr. Grout on October 30th could not find the inspector, and had similar interviews with the persons in charge of- the house. Other witnesses testified to like visits, like interviews, and like results at the houses of the other inspectors. The learned presiding judge said, in admitting this testimony: “There is sufficient evidence in it to base an inference that what was done, in regard to these inspectors, was part of a scheme which comprehended all; that the covert motive actuating the defendant with regard to them can be shown.”

We think the evidence was admissible. Obstacles to the pursuit of the registry lists could not be well instituted without the evidence of the details by them of the pursuit aud of the obstacles. Standing alone, and apart from the defendant, any one of the several pursuits might seem to be admissible, but the question for the jury was, did they severally stand alone and apart from the defendant, or did they stand each in its place as part of the obstruction and defense at that place against Mr. Gaynor’s search for the registry lists, and did they thus in fact stand together? Did McKane stand apart from the plan of obstruction, or was he its leader? This view applies to the details of the series of attacks by Mr. Gaynor and the resistance, evasive, defensive and repulsive, apparently planned, operated, and maintained for his defeat. McKane was not always in view, but the evidence shows that he was at the front at the opening of the controversy, at several of its intermediate stages-, and politically so, under cover of

Michael Ryan was an inspector in the second district. He was also principal of the public school on Coney Island, a part of the town of Gravesend. When the quest for the copies of registry lists in the hands of the individual inspectors was being made, during the week preceding the election, search was unsuccessfully made for him. There were six teachers under him in the public school. One of them, Clara P. Daly, testified that he was absent from the school on Thursday, Friday and Monday preceding election day, Saturday being a holiday ; that such continued absence was unusual. She was also permitted to testify to the number of pupils in the school. The counsel for the defendant assumed that this was done for the purpose of .showing the disproportion between scholars and voters. But its purpose seems to have been to show that the school was large enough to need the principal’s customary attendance on the days in question, and thus his absence might be referable to his co-operation in the scheme of suppressing the registry lists. The circumstance may have been slight, but we cannot say it should not have been considered, in connection with the other testimony.

Several witnesses were called by the defendant to testify to his good reputation. On cross-examination the people were permitted to ask them as to his reputation in connection with certain specified directions involving a questionable use of his power, and this was permissible. The defendant having introduced evidence of general estimation that his reputation was good, the people certainly were at liberty to show, upon cross-examination, what it was in respect to important particulars; certainly so within a reasonable range of the subject introduced by the defendant. It may be that some of the particulars thus introduced strengthened the case of the people in respect to the peculiar power and influence ol' the defendant among his townsmen, and, in the absence of objections to the right of cross-examination, we cannot find error requiring reversal from the fact that the testimony may have touched, not only the defendant’s character, but also the probability of the charge against him. To hold this to be error would be to invite a defendant whose case is desperate to spread a net in which to ensnare the people.

Defendant presses some objection to the charge to the jury. It is doubtful whether there are any exceptions. Written requests to charge, when presented by counsel, were passed upon by the court before making the main charge. Two exceptions were then taken. At .the close of the main charge, one of the defendant’s counsel said: “I desire to withdraw the exceptions I took.” Whether he did this because he was impressed with the fairness and correctness of -the charge, or because he preferred to give the jury the

Bach admission implies so much. It was not an error of the judge to say so of the testimony in question. He did not say how nearly it tended. If he had undertaken to say that, it would have been dangerously near encroaching on the province of the jury. Elsewhere the court brought out the distinction that, while it might be light to the evidence tending to establish some facts in the case, it was for the jury to determine whether they believed it, and, if so, whether it did establish it. We may safely assume, we think, that at the time this distinction was clearly understood.

Instructions given by the court as due' to the defendant in regard to the posting and accessibility of the registry list and copies seemed to be favorable to the inspectors in the extreme limit of permissible liberality. The criticism of other portions of the charge does not seem to us to require special mention. Finally, the defendant contends that the verdict is against the evidence.

The foregoing opinion is mainly confined to such exceptions, taken upon the trial, which the defendant impresses upon our attention, as seemed to us worthy of written mention. The examination served to develop, to some extent, the nature of the case. Wo do not think it necessary to undertake the additional labor to quote and arrange in order the testimony given, to a clear presentation of the whole case. It will suffice to say that we have examined, and the examination satisfies us that the verdict, as offered, is justified by, the evidence.

Justice of the conviction confirmed.

All concur.