The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-02-17
General Sessions.

Before lis Honor the Recorder, Judes Lynch and
Noan' and Aldermen Pollock and Kimball
FEB 10 Trial for False Prstences The trial of
Jonathan Amory and Henry H. Leeds, was re-
sumed.
Mr.: WILLIAM CLEMENT HAoern1y was ,s.;,
.aeo upon the STAND as witness. The first ques-
ton put to him by counsel for prosecution was TO
ascertain what conversations had passed between.
himself and Amory & Leeds, relative TO the sale.
and disposition Of merchandise, classified in the
legged in the indictment.
The counsel for defence objected TO the adnis-
sibility of the evidence
The Court decided that all questions calculated
to show the intent to deceive, were relevant and,
admissible, whether the conversations were pre-
vious to or after the original agreement The
counsel for defence objected, and requested the
transactions or conversations not applicable to the
definite charge in the indictment.
WITNESS continuation the 10th of March.
1910, | called upon Amory Il Leeds, aud asked
whether we should pay the sales Of goods at auc-
ton sent by them, or retain it in payment of adj
vances by us; they said they wished the money,
and that our advances were fully secured by goods
In their possession; if we had known the goods
were IN the public stores SHOULD not haze made
so much Of an advancement on them on account of the
payment Of the duties.
After considerable argument relative to certain
9uestions 10 De put to witness, and backing and
ming On the part Of counsel for ecution the
witness contraacted his first answer, and said that
tney would not have made any advances on goods
..
a. Inc Recorder having been called to organize
Tue ooard OF Sapervisors, on account of the abb
scnce OF the Mayor, the Court took a recess for
one nuas' ua. one O'Clock The time arriving,
Ho'n wss received from him, that the business at
the Board was such as 10 ompel him TO remain. The
Court adjourned until four o'clock
Cn re.assemoiing, the witness was again called
and Continued as follows Mr. Amorv called In
re month Of May to obtain new advance. told
him we had no objection as long as NE were a.
cured; then asked him if the merchandise was
all correct according to the invoices on which we
nad made advances; he replied in the Affirmative:
he also said he would send the goods or the in.
voices at 6S Pine and 81 William, 10 New street.
so that we could have all the gosds on.which ad-
to send the key Of the store in New street: after
Amory a. Leeds had failed, we endeavored to Get
possession Of the goods that had been pledged to
us; the invoice Of goods in Pine street store
in William street store, 70 packages, valued at
ST., O94 10; of these goods we found "a packages
At os pine street valued in the invoice rendered to
as at ST. sos 81; 81 at 60 New street, valued at
S26 43 H. that had been sent from the Pine street
store, and II that had been brought from the Will
liam street store, which were valued at 1925 80,
being altogether l25 packages less than entered in
the invoice, and valaed at So, 1856 "a. On en-
curing for the goods, Mr. Amory told me that they
had been sold, and also that they had NO proceeds
to pay at present. He also said that he would give
US US me balance due ON his books, and also the
pa ance ne from Brown, Brothers & Co.
Cross-sr0mined-1n the month of April we re-
ceived from An,ory & Leeds, at several different
payments, the sum OF 49, 125 to pay the notes due
OF Amory & Leeds large portion of goods that
had been placed in our store by them was removed;
some 81, 900 worth this was in the month OF
March, April and May Of 1910 there was an nm
be sent in their place; we delivered these goods
on the orders Of the clerks of the firm Of Amory T.
Leeds there were more taken away than had an
idea of we received several bales OF sheet and
n ~ n Of he n A.<h
was between the Goth of December and the time
they failed the value was about $4 600; not get.
ting the Key from Amery & Leeds belonging to The
store No SO New street, we took the lock from
the door BY force this was a few days after the
failure Of Amory Leeds; we removed all the
goods we found in that store the inyoice value Of
ns sVOa' tasa 6es ~ Vas 20 the aist
ton in November ls4o en- the Och Of November
184l we introduced Messrs. Amory & Leeds a..
Witnesses in q trial in which some Of these goods
Rer that n he Our lad seat
Msssrs. Amory g. Leeds in order to inform then
that we intended to have them indicted; this
Indictment was found they came there e
the time agreed upon. and during conversation
with them; he asked me the amount on our books
due from Amory and Leeds, which told hin;
they objected to the amount; then walked away:
my father went before the grand jury 10 make tie
complaint; il 10 probable at the time this converse
ton took place, that mentioned the amount re-
Ccivc~ run inc farm OF MT. Am0fy, At Sing Sing.
that had been conveyed to our firm a. part nav uent
Of the amount due us; think have said that thew
ought to 60 to Sing Sing; said that thought {
was likely that if they were convicted Governor
Seward would pardon them may have said that
l was sorry that Governor Seward had another
year 10 serve, because he might pardon them; I
do not remember that l said 30 to James Bowen.
Direct examination resumed-This conversation
took place at Simon Diapers house; neither Blatch-
ford nor lGleatworth were present (Laueh-
ter lnthe month Of May, 1910, Mr.. Amory called
to obtain further advances, and agreed to put the
goods in the store No 60 New street; we ave the
advances before receiving the invoices; This was
contrary to our will, but we made them TO oblise
Mr.. Amory; the invoice value according to me-
moranda sent of goods at this time, was 500. 600.
During the month of May, we advanced notes TO
the amount Of $4,000; there is a controversy a.
to the right Of possession of the goods taken by No
from New street.
A copy Of a letter from Amory and Leeds to
Brown, Brothers g. Co, was here read, dated June
10Th, lS4O, requesting them to take possession Of
the goods in the store In New street, ON behalf of
those concerned; and also stating that Haererty e.
Jones had claim spon said goods. The answer Of
brown, Brothers & Co., accepting the proposal,
was alsoread
The Court here adjourned to 10 O'Clock Thursday
morning.