USA > New York > New York City > History of the Court of common pleas of the city and county of New York : with full reports of all important proceedings > Part 3
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15
39
the three Judges, the Recorder and three Aldermen, and the decision was that the Court being thus divided in opinion the charges be dismissed. -
JAMES R. WHITING APPOINTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
The Court convened on May 17th, 1841, to appoint a District Attorney, their choice falling upon James R. Whiting, he receiving on the first ballot thirteen votes, and on division being called for, nineteen votes out of twenty-four.
A PROTEST.
A protest against the right of Associate Justices of the General Sessions to sit in the Court, signed by eleven of the Aldermen, was presented, and a motion was made to enter it upon the minutes, which was lost.
TRIAL OF JUSTICE MILN PARKER.
On August 7th, 1841, the Court was convened to try Miln Parker, a Special Justice, upon charges and specifi- cations. The charges presented by Isaac J. Wood, through Abraham D. Russell, as counsel, were ordered to be served on the accused and delivered to the Dis- trict Attorney, and the Clerk was directed to notify the Judges of the County Court to attend on the 7th of Sep- tember. On the last named day the Court met, the Al- dermen sitting as members. George M. Van Cott ap- peared as counsel for Justice Parker and was granted until the 11th inst. to plead to the charges. The Dis- trict Attorney, on motion of counsel for the prosecutor, was requested to assist in conducting the prosecution. On the adjourned day the Court assembled, the District
40
Attorney appearing with the attorney for the prosecu- tion, and Horace Holden, James T. Brady and D. M. Van Cott appearing as counsel on behalf of the accused. The trial occupied nine days and twenty witnesses were examined. Edward Sanford appeared on the third day as associate counsel for the prosecution. The sum- ming up occupied two days. Written opinions were delivered by Judge Ingraham and the Recorder in favor of the acquittal of the accused and the Court, consisting of the three Judges of the Common Pleas, the Recorder and fourteen Aldermen, unanimously dismissed the charges, all the members voting in the affirmative.
TRIAL OF JUSTICE WILLIAM WILEY.
On January 10th, 1842, the County Court met to consider a communication received from the Mayor enclosing a certificate of the Clerk of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, showing that William Wiley, one of the Assistant Justices of the city, had been con- victed of receiving stolen goods with knowledge. The Court requested the District Attorney to make charges against the Justice " in order to his removal from office, unless the necessity of such removal is dispensed with by the resignation of said Justice being accepted by the Common Council." On the adjourned day, January 14th, 1842, the District Attorney appeared and Alder- man Campbell made a motion that inasmuch as Justice Wiley had tendered his resignation to the Common Council and it was in the power of that body to accept it, the Court should adjourn in order that that body might act on the same. The motion was lost. The District At- torney then made the charges against the Justice which
4I
were ordered on file. A copy was directed to be served on him with notice to appear on the 3d of February fol- lowing, when it having been communicated to the Court that the Common Council had accepted the resig- nation of the Justice and had appointed a successor, it was ordered that further proceedings be discontinued.
QUESTION OF INCLUDING NAMES OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES.
On July 26th, 1842, the Court (as the County Court of New York) convened to consider the question whether the names of the Associate Judges of the General Sessions should be entered on the minutes of the Court as Judges thereof. The Mayor objected. The Recorder moved that Judge Lynch be heard in support of the motion. Judge Lynch made an argu- ment in favor of the motion and was followed by the Mayor in opposition. Judge Inglis moved that the resolution lie on the table to enable the members of the Court to examine the subject, and the Court adjourned to the first Monday in September. The Mayor re- quested the mover to withdraw his motion, which being complied with, he asked for what precise purpose an order had been made in the Common Pleas conven- ing the Court. Judge Inglis replied that the order had been made pursuant to written requests signed by three of the Judges in behalf of the thirteen judges of the Court without stating the object. An adjournment was taken to July 27th, and on that day Alderman Davies read an opinion in favor of sustaining the claims of the Associate Justices of the General Sessions to sit as Judges of the County Court. Judge Ingraham deliv- ered an adverse opinion in which Judge Inglis con-
42
curred. The Recorder gave an opinion sustaining the right of the Associate Justices, and the First Judge (Ulshoeffer) delivered a written opinion adverse to the claims of the said Judges to sit as Judges of the County Court generally, but in favor of the call of the names of said Judges whenever matters relating to the appoint- ment of a District Attorney was agitated. A vote was taken on the question before the Court, which resulted in a tie. The matter was then laid on the table and the Court adjourned sine die.
TRIAL OF JUSTICES GEORGE W. MATZEL, MILN PARKER AND EPHRAIM STEVENS.
On September 8th, 1842, the Court met to consider a presentment of the grand jury sent by the General Sessions to the First Judge of the Common Pleas in relation to the conduct of certain Special Justices. The Court, on motion, adopted an order proposed by Judge Ingraham referring the presentment of the grand jury to counsel (Matthew C. Paterson) for the purpose of examining into the charges therein preferred against the Special Justices and if sufficient evidence could be secured to sustain such charges before the Court that he be directed to prepare charges for such purpose and report the same to the Court. On September 23d, 1842, the Court having assembled, Mr. Paterson presented a report prepared pursuant to the foregoing order, ac- companied with charges and specifications against George W. Matzel, Miln Parker and Ephraim Stevens, Special Justices, and an order was made requiring the accused to answer on the 4th day of October and copies of the charges and specifications were directed to be
43
served upon them. On the return day Matthew C. Paterson appeared in support of the charges, and Messrs. Brady, Lord and Price appeared for the Justices. Mr. Paterson read an affidavit of Floyd Smith as to the truth of the charges, which was filed. An affidavit of the service of the charges and a copy of the rule to answer upon the Justices was filed. Mr. Paterson called upon the accused Justices to answer or plead to the charges. Mr. Brady, on behalf of the Jus- tices, objected to answer or plead to the charges in their present form, charging the Justices jointly for separate and specific acts done by them, and suggested that the prosecutor amend them instanter and they would then be ready to answer and proceed to trial at once. Mr. Paterson contended that the charges were properly prepared and that the Justices should plead to them in their present form. To this Mr. Lord ob- jected and stated that unless they were amended a motion must be made to quash them. After hearing further argument, the Court, through the Recorder and the three Judges of the Common Pleas, considered the charges defective for the reasons suggested by the counsel for the Justices, and an order was made per- mitting the prosecutor to change the accusations so as to charge the several Justices separately, and that the charges so amended be printed and served four days before the meeting of the Court. On the 18th of October the Court convened and Mr. Paterson ten- dered to the accused the charges against them as amended. Their counsel objected on the ground that they were entitled to four days' service of the same, which objection the Court sustained. An adjournment
44
Marinus Willett
5. Helion
was had until the 25th inst. Messrs. Paterson and O'Conor then appeared for the prosecution, and Messrs. Brady, Lord, Price and Holden for the Jus- tices. An objection was made on their behalf that the charges were not substantially the same as those directed by the Court to be amended, and that the new charges, if entertained, were not sufficiently verified. This motion was argued, and on a subsequent day the Court rendered its decision denying the motion to quash but amending the charges so as to strike out the names of certain Aldermen contained therein, and all reference to said Aldermen, and adding the words " divers other persons," names of the confederates as charged, and directing the defendants to answer. Pleas of not guilty were put in by the Justices and filed on the next day, and the Court took an adjournment to November 2d, when the trial commenced. Two wit- nesses duly subpoenaed were attached for non-appear- ance. The charges against each Justice were separately heard. The trial of Miln Parker occupied fourteen days and the charges were finally dismissed; all the Judges and thirteen Aldermen voting for acquittal and three Aldermen voting for conviction, and it was then recommended by the Court to the counsel acting on behalf of the prosecution that all further proceedings against the other Justices, Matzel and Stevens, be dis- continued unless some new evidence which might adduce a conviction exist in those cases, and Mr. Paterson having stated that he had no new evidence to offer against the last named Justices, it was ordered that the charges against them be also dismissed.
45
TRIAL OF DR. C. H. JACKSON.
On March 2d, 1843, the Court assembled to try a charge preferred by the New York County Medical Society against Dr. Charles H. Jackson. The full bench was present, together with fourteen Aldermen. The charge was sustained.
RESIGNATION OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY JAMES R. WHITING.
On the 29th of May, 1843, the Court assembled to receive the resignation of James R. Whiting as District Attorney. On motion the letter was engrossed at length on the minutes of the Court. It was as follows: NEW YORK, May 11th, 1843.
DEAR SIR :
I hereby resign the office of District Attorney for the City and County of New York. I respectfully ask you to communicate it to the Honorable Court over which you preside at your earliest convenience. As no fit occasion has presented itself since my appointment of tendering my thanks to the Court for their partiality in selecting me to fill so important an office, I have deemed it now not unfit to return to them my warm acknowledgments for the high honor conferred upon me. I accepted the trust with thankfulness, and have to the best of my ability performed its functions. I part with it without regret, but with a lively sense of gratitude to the appointing power, cheered by the consciousness which I think I may, without pre- sumption, entertain, that I restore the trust unsul- lied by any act of mine. I will continue to perform the duties of the office until it shall please the Court to sup- ply the vacancy, and in the meantime have the honor to be, with great respect,
Your obedient and humble servant,
HON. MICHAEL ULSHOEFFER, J. R. WHITING.
First Judge of the County Court, City of New York.
46
On June 19th following the Court assembled to con- sider the resignation. An adjournment was had to June 28th, 1843, when the Court resolved that it deemed it inexpedient to accept the resignation of James R. Whiting as District Attorney.
COMPLAINTS PREFERRED.
At the same meeting the Mayor stated that a com- plaint had been preferred against Justice Gilbert by Henry Smith, John C. Jackson and James Gerry, and that he was requested to present the same to the Court. On motion, it was resolved that the same be referred to a committee of three Judges of the Court to examine and report thereon. The following Judges were appointed as the said committee: Aldermen Woodhull, Tillon and Brevoort. On February 28th the Mayor handed in the charges exhibited against Justice Gilbert by Andrew McGown. These charges were referred to the same committee. At the next meeting of the Court, March 4th, 1844, the First Judge of the Common Pleas stated that he had convened the Court to present a petition of James Moncrief preferring a complaint against James B. Greenman, Clerk to the Assistant Justice of the Fifth District Court. This petition was referred to the same committee. On March 12th, 1844, the Court con- vened. Alderman Woodhull, of the committee to whom the complaint against James B. Greenman was referred, presented a written report recommending that further proceedings in the case be discontinued. The report was accepted.
47
The First Judge presented a complaint of Josiah M. Foote against Ebenezer Stevens, a Special Justice, which was read and referred to Alderman Woodhull's committee. 1
On March 26th, 1844, the Court met, and Alderman Woodhull reported in favor of dismissing the complaint of Josiah M. Foote against Justice Stevens. The report was adopted.
The same committee reported on the complaint of Andrew McGown against Justice Gilbert. On motion, it was ordered that charges be preferred against Justice Gilbert. The vote upon the motion was eleven in the affirmative, including Judges Ingraham and Inglis and nine Aldermen; and eight in the negative, including Judge Ulshoeffer and seven Aldermen. It was ordered that the District Attorney prepare the charges to be founded upon the complaint presented to the Court. On May 6th, 1844, the Court met to proceed with the hearing of the charges. On this occasion Judge Charles P. Daly sat for the first time in the Court. The District Attorney, Mr. Whiting, appeared for the prosecution, and David Graham, Jr. for the defendant, who, being called upon to plead to the charges, pleaded not guilty. The evidence upon the charges was taken before the Court on several days, down to and including May 11th, 1844, and eleven witnesses were examined. The case was summed up and submitted, and, the Court having re-convened, Alderman Scoles and the First Judge read written opinions. On motion, the Court proceeded to consider each specification separately. It was decided that "the first specification of the first charge is proved except as to the quo animo therein charged." The vote
48
The Audio Sumet
Il. Monors
a
Johnk Porter.
-
stood eleven to nine, Judge Daly, Recorder Talmadge and ten Aldermen voting in the affirmative, and Judges Ulshoeffer, Ingraham and seven Aldermen in the nega- tive. It was decided that " the second specification of the first charge except as to the quo animo is proved " by a vote of fourteen to seven. A similar decision was made as to the third specification of the first charge by a vote of twelve to nine. A similar disposition was made as to the fourth specification of the first charge by a vote of eighteen to three, all the Judges, the Recorder and fourteen Aldermen voting in the affirma- tive and three Aldermen in the negative. It was decided " that the fifth specification of the first charge and that the sixth specification of the first charge was not proved." On vote being taken on the first charge, Justice Gilbert was declared not guilty, by a vote of eight to thirteen, all the Judges and the Recorder voting in the negative. The vote on the second charge was taken generally, and he was declared not guilty by a vote of two to nineteen, and the following resolutions submitted by the First Judge were adopted :
First. Resolved, That although the evidence in the case of the articles of impeachment against Justice Gilbert does not justify the arrest, detention and com- mitment of Mr. McGown as a disorderly person, nor the fine hastily and summarily and without an ad- journment imposed upon Mr. Lewis by said Justice, and although the conduct of the Justice does not meet with the approbation of this Court, still it appears by the evidence that the errors committed by the Justice may have been errors of judgment and were not the re- sult of malice, corruption or oppression.
Second. Resolved, therefore, That the charges against
49
Justice Gilbert are not substantiated in such a manner as to justify his removal from office, and that con- sequently he stands discharged therefrom.
These resolutions were adopted by a vote of twelve to nine, all the Judges and the Recorder, with eight Aldermen, voting in favor of, and nine Aldermen against them.
MR. MATTHEW C. PATERSON APPOINTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
On June 10th, 1844, the Court met to appoint a Dis- trict Attorney in place of Mr. Whiting, from whom the First Judge read a letter calling attention to the fact that his term of office expired on the 4th inst. Matthew C. Paterson was appointed to succeed him, the vote standing thirteen in his favor, three for William Inglis (ex-Judge of the Court of Common Pleas), and two scattering.
COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUSTICES JOSEPH HASKELL AND WILLIAM WALN DRINKER.
On Tuesday, January 21st, 1845, the Court convened at the request of the Mayor for the purpose of receiv- ing certain complaints against the official conduct of Joseph Haskell and William Waln Drinker, Special Justices.
The Court convened again on February 11th, 1845, when Alderman Schieffelin made a motion that the District Attorney be authorized to associate with him- self additional counsel to aid in conducting the proceed- ings. The motion was opposed by Judge Ingraham on the ground that it was a matter discretionary with the
50
District Attorney and contrary to the practice of the Court; but, the question being taken on the motion, it was adopted, and the District Attorney then stated that he had associated Ogden Hoffman as counsel, who appeared and took his seat. The District Attorney filed the charges and specifications against Justices Haskell and Drinker and called upon Justice Haskell to plead. George Wood and James T. Brady appeared as counsel for Justice Haskell, and Mr. Brady before he proposed to plead to the charges made a motion to strike out the fifth charge and addressed the Court in support of the motion. Messrs. Hoffmann and Pater- son, respectively, addressed the Court in opposition, and were followed by Mr. Wood in support of the motion. A question being taken upon striking out, it was decided adversely. The answer of Justice Haskell, pleading not guilty, was then filed, and evidence was produced. The Court adjourned to the 13th of Feb- ruary, when further evidence was taken. Mr. Brady called upon the District Attorney to exhaust the testi- mony on the part of the prosecution of each witness upon all the charges before he proceeded to their cross- examination. The District Attorney objected to this, and stated that he proposed to examine all the wit- nesses upon each charge and thus dispose of each charge separately instead of elicting all the facts within the knowledge of each witness at once in relation to the various charges. The counsel for the respective parties being heard in support and opposition of the proposed course and a vote being taken thereon, the course of the District Attorney was sustained by a vote of ten to eight. Mr. Brady then declined to cross-ex-
5I
amine the witness produced on the part of the prosecu- tion until the direct examination was concluded on all charges. This course was assented to by the District Attorney. Evidence was taken upon that and nine subsequent days, until March 22d, 1845, when the cause was summed up.
At the final meeting there were present the three Judges, Ulshoeffer, Ingraham and Daly, of the Court of Common Pleas; James Harper, Mayor; Frederick A. Talmadge, Recorder, and the following Alderman: William S. Miller, William Gale, William B. Cousins, Lucius G. Drake, William Tucker, Horatio Mott, Jeremiah J. Dickinson, David S. Jackson, Thomas Winship, Stephen Hasbrouck, Richard L. Schieffelin, William C. Seaman and Charles Devoe. Judges Ulshoeffer, Ingraham and Daly, and Aldermen Miller, Dickinson, Schieffelin and Devoe read written opinions of the case; the Mayor and Aldermen Has- brouck and Gale delivered oral opinions. Alderman Schieffelin offered a resolution that Justice Haskell be removed from the office of Special Justice for the following causes:
Ist. Because he has been guilty of arbitrary, oppress- ive and illegal conduct in the exercises of the duties thereof.
2nd. Because he has been guilty of wilful and malicious conduct in the exercise of his office.
3rd. Because he has been guilty of wilful and gross violations of the duty of a magistrate in conduct tending to defeat the ends of public justice.
4th. Because he has exhibited a violent, ungovern- able and oppressive temper, rendering him unfit for the
52
DE Faulou
G b. lesplancha
Robinson
2
proper, fair and impartial discharge of the duties of his said office.
Alderman Gale stated that although he was in favor of the removal of Justice Haskell, yet he could not vote for the resolution offered if it contained all the causes assigned for such removal; whereupon Alderman Miller moved that it be amended by striking out the words "wilful and" in the third clause, which was agreed to by a vote of eight to six. The resolution was then adopted by a vote of eleven to seven; the Mayor and ten Aldermen in the affirmative, the three Judges, the Recorder and three Aldermen in the negative. He was, however, acquitted of the first two causes by a vote of eight to ten, and convicted of the last two by a vote of eleven to seven. The considera- tion of the charges against Justice Drinker was set down for the 9th of April.
On April 9th an adjournment was taken to April 24th.
TRIAL OF JUSTICE DRINKER.
On the 24th of April the Court proceeded to the hearing of the charges against Justice Drinker. Mr. David Graham, Jr., on behalf of Justice Drinker, filed a written answer pleading not guilty to the first and second charges and demurring to the third. A motion being made to strike out the words "has from time to time discharged persons accused of felonies and misdemeanors without examination or bail," in the specification to the third charge, the same were ordered to be stricken out. The demurrer being overruled, the Justice pleaded not guilty to the third charge. Wit-
53
nesses were called and examined on that and five fol- lowing days, when the cause was submitted upon the address of counsel and the First Judge and Alderman Schieffelin read written opinions, the Mayor, the Recorder, Judge Daly and Aldermen Miller, Cousins, Drake, Dickinson and Hasbrouck delivering oral opinions.
Alderman Schieffelin offered a resolution that
WHEREAS, The charges against the Justice have in the opinion of the Court been sustained, thathe be removed from office for the following causes.
Ist. That the said William W. Drinker since his appointment has been guilty of wilful, corrupt and illegal conduct in the exercise of his official duties.
2d. That he corruptly took moneys found in the possession of a prisoner which had been stolen, and appropriated same to his own private purposes.
3d. That he has exhibited want of capacity, either through ignorance or incapacity, to discharge the duties of his said office.
A motion was made that the resolution be amended by striking out the second cause assigned, which was agreed to without a division. Motion was made that the words "wilful, corrupt and " in the first cause be stricken out, which was also agreed to without a divi- sion. The question was then put on adopting the reso- lution as amended and it was decided in the negative by a vote of six to eight, Aldermen Williams and Bunting declined voting, not having heard the whole of the tes- timony or the argument of counsel.
Judge Ulshoeffer then offered the following resolu- tions:
Ist. Resolved, That although this Court strongly
54
disapprove of the conduct of Mr. Drinker in the respects stated in the charges against him they do notthink that he should be dismissed from his office or has been proved to be guilty of corrupt or malicious proceedings in his official duties.
2d. Resolved therefore, That the charges against Justice Drinker be and the same are hereby dismissed.
Debate being had thereon, the resolutions were lost by a vote of four to ten. Alderman Miller then moved that the rejection of the resolutions offered by Alderman Schieffelin be reconsidered, which was done by nine affirmative votes. Alderman Miller then moved the adoption of the resolutions of Alderman Schieffelin, which was lost by a tie vote.
Alderman Schieffelin then offered the following reso- lutions :
Resolved, That although this Court disapprove of the conduct of Mr. Drinker in the respects stated in the charges against him they do not think that he should be dismissed from his office or has been proved to be guilty of corrupt or malicious proceedings in his official duties although meriting the strongest censure of the Court.
Resolved, therefore, That the charges against Justice Drinker be and the same are hereby dismissed.
These resolutions were adopted by a vote of nine to five.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.