Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1840-12-16
General Sessions

| General sessions.
Present Recorder Morris, Chief Justice Ulshoeffer
Judge Lynch aud two Aldermen
| False Pretences -The trial of Alexander c. Coke
| was resumed by his counsel, Mr. j. j. Richardsoo
| calling MIR Joseph p. Prison, member of the bar
| who said he knew both Coke and Naumann The
| latter came TO the Office of Prison in November
lS9, Ter the purpose OF getting pay for the segars
On that occasion Naumann explicitly stated that
as Ia. as Coke was concerned, IL fair business
transaction"
Reco, der-Did he use those werdsl
Witness-Why, l cannot say if he or used the
words.
CT. Ulshoefler-Did he appear to understand the
| language without an iaterPretsrl
Wnness-O yes, perfectly well.
\ Chief Justice-What did he complain of
Wtness-Why, Of having been deceived by Brit
| to, and kept out Of his money.
| District Auorney-Where did Coke live in 1892
WNness-ln Wooster street
District Atorney-What business did he foewi
Nitness-Why, | knew Coke as speeu lative
man and land agent, and on.
| office,
| Witness-Why, that Brto had introduced Coke
to him and he thereby lost his segars.
| District Atterney-Did he say that Coke lived
| at Kingston, and not in this ctyl
Witness-Nothing Of the sort.
1 District Attorney-Did he not say enough to CEN
vey to your mind the idea that he had been cheated.
| Wtness-Yss, he did.
| District A,torney-Did he threaten Coke with the
Police9
Witness-Not in my hearing.
| District Attorney-You say he charged Britto
with cheating hm-how did he do il!
| Witness-Why, he complained of the Doctors
Introducing Coke to him.
Juror want to know if this Mr.. Coke ever lived
| at Kingston?
Witness-I never heard of it.
William ]. Harrington called by the District At
Mr. Naumann.
Objected to by the defendants counsel.
The Recorder overruled the obje ctions.
Witness went on 10 say thai Naumann stated to
LAWYER PRISON.. that he had hecn induced nv he
representations of Brtto, to believe that Coke was
man of large property at Kingston, to give him
dit rising one hundred dollars.
Cross-examined.-This was after the warrant " a.
GU: against Coke.
The defendants Counsel said, that this was not
the same conversation testified to by PRISON.
The Court said that PRISON had not given any
particular date to the conversation.
This witness afterwards underwent pretty long
examination from Coke himself for the purpose OF
eliciting certain admissions made by Harrington
to the effect that if the note paid, noie pros
should be entered. Coke also stated that he had
never denied the debt TO be last one, and that If
he had beon pursued civilly, instead of crminally,
would have been paid long ago. He also stated that
Dr. Brittle and some other worthy had!done him out
of all the segars.
For the defence, two witnesses swore that the
prosecutor had offered TO compromise the charge il
his debt paid.
Charles Hontoon swore that Coke had at this time
81 500 standing in his name, in the Eagle Bank,
and that was at par, and bore intrinsic value
in the market. Witness is the President Of the
b,nk, and Coke was appointed, last year, agent
TO investigate the affairs Of the bank The banking
house is in Cedar street, and il was under
the General Banking Law.
Another witness swere that Coke had large
number Of lots in the city OF Philadelphia.
After some other unimportant testimony, Mr..
Richardson addressed the jury in behalf Of his Client
Coke, for one hour and half
The District Attorney briefly replied, and
jury retired under the charge Of the Court, TO
slider Of their verdict,
At very late hour the jury had not decided.