The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-12-21
Superior Court.

OVERWHELMINGLY LOthrOp,
gstrste before whom the plant against Bulkssy
was first heard and dismissed Alexander Crossett
who arrested him Mr. vandervoort aud Mr.. Stewart,
the clerks OF the General Sessions the Police Court
who proved the various documents and the results OF
the two Investigations, and, also. that Mr. g. Smith
had called ut the police Office after the Of tho
and said that ne had commu nicated with Mr.
Phillips the Assistant District Attorney and tina. he
had expressed hts intention seud the before
grand jury upon which representation the papers
tent to the District Attorneys Office Mr., Recorder
Scott deposed TO the fact OF Mr. Buckley being tried
before him and that he directed the jury TO aequt the
prisoner before witnesses Ter the defenss
smiDed on the ground that tho prosecution did not
Offer sufficient testimony 10 prove the charge OF per
jury Several other witnesses examined thls day
Mr. Phillips the Assistant District Attorney, deposed
that Mr. q Smith expressed some surprise, NJ his
Office that the papers had not been down frem the
police court and said that the against luke
ley had not been dismissed he gave Mr Smith note
TO the police office Tor the papers MIR = did tell
him that the magistrate could not entertain the case
II he had :" told him, he certaisly should not have
sent Tor the papers
On his cross examination, ne said he had not seen
either OF The Keteltases in the matter
MIR. Cutting asked the witness II he had reading
the papers formed the opinion that there was proper
A discussion arose to the admissbiIity OF the
question ana the Court ruled IL in, in order syod
perhaps a new trial
Mir Gerard in excepting ssid that no mao would
be tate from such tout conspiracy against hi, repu
ton II the opinion formed by the District Attorney
were TO Be admitted, and that too, upon the pare
papers of the eonsp irstors.
Wines On reading the papers thought there
a go before Gre nd Jury; was DOT soil.
cited by any person send those papers before the
Grand Jury the defendant was acquitted by tae order
OF the Judge who raid there not sucis To
convict Mr.. Buckley; the District Attorney urged
against the Court taking the opinion from tho jury
and conteDded that they hould pass upon it, aud
IL due to Mr. oulkeey character c. hear the
fence The Court held that there legal perjury
and the defendant acquitted without any evidence
Tor the defence; Bradley name IA the papers,
and cannot tell whether he was subpeUssd not
can he explain hog IL happened that beadiey, whose
name not on the papers examined for the pro.
tecutiop thinks That the District Attorney examined
him. because the counsel for Buckley asked why
bradley not exAminedn and iE was to eatsfy the
banter" as be might say, Of the counsel Tor MIR.
Buckley.
20 AR. Brady-Never knew In his life an occasion
wheie ths cent TO tse District Attorneys
otcs und rejected to bs sent before the Grand larry.
ltScepted tn by Mr. Cutting Mr. Smith ASKED
nesfes opinion on the papers and he ssid be thought
IL wass Pp.a Jac'e case, "n "hieh the Grand Jury
ought TO ind; did consider the papers ia them
selves sufficient for the Grand jury to ind ndicr
nent If they ala End those papors he eh ould
sdr II gced grounds for qusshiag che Indictment; bat
be rent the aidavits which we're those made ia the
Common pi.se, merely as II they wore written dscu-
meDts and that they furnished the OF parties
who would sustain the ef perjury.
MIR. Brady suppose you had been told that Mr..
Berkeley that he had no in tere.t in tho snit
ana that hs had afterwards said that hs had would
you consider that suicisnt grounds to indot him Tor
perjury!
Wnn.ss-Certainiy not because 1t is not law that
man cen be tried for offence without evidence OF
To Juror-if he understood that the complaint
bad been dismissed by the magistrsts he would not
have Undertaken TO have cent the papers before the
Grand Jury
- Clarke, exacined-was counsel for MIR Bulks-
ley st the General Sessions the principal grounds Of
dsfeucs were thar the corpus deti was not proved;
witness insisted Bradley being called 80 witness;
the prosecution did 30 with reluctance and Bradley
depop.d that What Bulkeey had sworn e. in tns 30 ~
mon Pleas true; witness then took the ground that
there was 10 TO 20 To the jury because tn. false
STATE ment was not proved and that the witness for
the had sworn that the statement OF 3uke
ley was true.
f. sandford, Esq deposed that be was counsel for
Bradley sgsutt MIR. Retetas in the trial la the Com
mon Pleas Mr. &. smith conducted tho case for tGs
deeIce tie other defendants present with him;
cslled MI Bnlk.ey ~ witness Gu that occasions, for
the defence MIR Eugene heteltas called then Nor
gan ODel, hs driver; then Mr. C. Is. saith cslud HIM
self and testified anu then summed up the deisnce.
witness read from his notes) when MIR Buckley
was called, Nr Smith objected 60 his compete oy;
Judge Daily asked on what grounds Mr.. Smith said
that the attorney in the cause Judge Oay said
that VAS no objection; Buckley was then sworn With
out any further objection; his ssexauinston,
Mr. bukeey asked Was he the attorney ia the cause
he ansSer.d he VAS; bs was asked where did Bradley
reside, and he ssid In New York. he asked
lsst faw hin, aud he said la November or December
psecsdipgi ho added that be heard from him siuoe
then; ths next question Mas whether there was any
agreement b.t~een him ana MIR. Bradley reference
" compensation his ansHr was 'thers was no agree
msnt between Brailsy and myself but told him
would accept nothing from hun; the neNt question
that hs had received two dollars DIS.
bur.n.nts anu seventy five ceuts for AT sther atter
there no further question asked sir. BaiSri,y
spectiuE his interest Ia the suit; tho direct s.un
vbeth. n, wa. ipter,st.dr In the event of IN, sult
net put TO bim Mr.. smith and MIR Brush pied
the table ~ counsel aud the N.s'rs, ketUltas
near th,m; they are all lawyers but william Hetcl-
tao; Mir q. u, smith aud Mr Blush represented tho
prosecution before Justice Iothrep; witness looked
over the charge nRsiDst sir Bnlkelvy aud asked was
tDet AZ tue evidence tnat was 70 be proved AMI then
iaec II that We the case for the prosecution would
waive the errors examination " the sitBosss and
for bnkeeys oifcharge; they thee ssEod too tGe 70
produce fufthsr Evidence aud H. granted against
my prot. stations; attended another day, and looked
at the additional reason TO change
my opibios and then sslin waived the crcss exact
n la I'll q tg 1frF
The ground that there no legal evidence that
eD. eieuoe bse been committed aud Justice Lothtop
ordered him 10 be discharged; asked the justice to
mark on the papers "this complaint disuiisssd" and
The jastice ra'o - hot usual 90 DO 90, wOud be
entered on tbs books; Mr. Smith was VERY much ex-
oiso, and asked Tor the papers to bring them to tae
District Attorney
on the part Of sr Satin towards Mr.. Hulkel-y, rnt
bitter is as mild ne express the nature II hts
feeling, Z, wss much 30, that spoke to Mr.. Smith
about it On way from the court; present a.
the trial Sessions ~ ~itnsss bat did not take any
part cOuns' took notes for Mr. clarke who the
counsel; smith vas sworn aud examined at that
tfisl and he sa'd II reoollect Mr. bukesy te. imony
the trial in this Common Ileas for fss days after
Tire trial wrote up his testimony with si-s q ipdi1t
him. Mr. Cutting excepted to this testimony
cross srsuinsd BY Ar Cuttng-ls unable TO cay
what part Mr. Brush took bs and MIR Snith acted
tso gentlemen Of tbs bar act lob cases, Sr saith
b.iug he principal sokc witness VS. not excited
NJ ths trial. untststnOd that hr Buikeisy testnooy
20 the jury under the gprssion that he (DulEe
ly) had interest bus that u attorney la the
g. app, aied that Buaeey setting grstuitouiy go
fur as bradley concerned; Mr. brush oid not. to
witness recollection, make any observation 20 the
magistrate but they conferred together has recol
isc'ion whatever a MIR Buselsy saying Ia his eei-
deuce thar he had nterst "a The sssat ~
}. Rice pocsusn deposed fhit be arrested
Mir boikelsy In his office Ia Wall street ca Bsuch
warrant, ana TOOK him to the fombs he gave bail
Bradley, the driver and the plaintiff in the yinal
action for assult end battery eposed that h. wrots
letter 20 MIR Buiksey. saying ne could not
70 the trial beirs Then stasion IA the wss and
that Mr Bulksley night settle it whatever wAy he
liked, . h. Ne DIT him out Of troubls.
Luous Bulseiey, Esq, the plaintiff wes examined
ard proved that he received letter from Mr. Bradley;
does know where it is did not think IL WAS npOr
tsht when the former suit was settled.
lsndl,s's sienfndfi0n coarTusd -tsme on to New
York afterNaids aud MIR. q % SInith csitvd on him.
ed fai3 Dc him before 8uk.iey got the
cney, south said that MIR Kstetss woUid rather
give bir bradley double the money than that BuEe.
ley thosio get any GIFT; Witness said II Mr. Rukslry
got the money would be all right snJ he VAS suro
u getting sbst vas coming 10 him.
Cross 'geBpsd Got $40 from Mr Buckley hrst,
ard no after; he sent for witness TO give h more
but witness did not want yet, he GIT Il At any
tine be wants u.
Toa Juror--t,ot q note on demand for the balance,
vac net going 20 put the monsy any business snd
Rad Necessity for A.; the note bpars interst thuks