The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-09-23

Befor. thu Hon. Judge Woodruff.

John
DeIt,r, and Henry Derer.-This cause was resumed
! this morning Geo Jarvis WIS cailel Oh the part Of
the plaintiff This witness hesitatsd for eonsidera
bic time 70 kiss the book untl the Judge at last
PEELED him lisa printer by trade: Is in .hs pio
mont of John Tho mas OF the defendants; hssbsen
In his ploy off and tor tour years; has been
| In the employ If M Oliver and Mr. Hall within the
last Is months; In the employ of Oliver last 0c-
tober for on. week the employ % Hall To- four
or Eve weeks in October November last; does not
think he has been IN the omploy Of auy other p rson;
Tbumss' place OF business WAS in Spruce STREET In
March OF las, YEAR he in the printing business;
be did not print the Police Gdze cannot say that is
printed In his establishu,snt; remember well
enough where &c vas printed 1t vas printed in Ann
street cannot recoecC in waosg establishment, nor
the mum of the house; the street
| it VAS opposite the engine bouse; MIR. Thomas does
not nov Occupy that buldingi It Is occupied by va
| rous persons. Thomas had control it tLeu;
Samuel udeli worked off the paper; does not know
that be was in the pay Of Thomas him re-
ceive any pay fro him never cav any copies Of tho
Police Gazette brought TO the office Udel yester-
cay In Ann street, in the Office where he at work
does not know whose Office 1t IL has not the least
| idea where Thomas new IL does not know s 3 May;
heard OF May, a printer never saw aud don't know v
the employment of Mr.. Thomas the Police Gazette mas
been worked OF on one OF his presses 1t worked
off there in Spruce street, about two years ago saw
] the press ia the establishment CT Mr. Thomas during
the -enths of March and April last year, the press
were three pit sses in Ann street; they were all in
Thouaes place before; they were taken at different
Cd'h IN worsing of the paper Ude did all himself;
does MT remember who worked at the press the
/ P0lte Gazette worked 1H by Thomas knows
| man na nrd Whitlock, printer.
The witness <ss net eros. ~Esmined.
JamesA Rvqus .xaniued.-Is Surveyor in Queens
county q Dc you snow fsuy other paper with the
name Of the Police Gazettel A. Yes sir saw tao
Other papers OF that pane-ore called LIE in Bos
| ton AID the N'W Engiond Police Gazette.
Deendsut's counsel objected TO the evidence the
ground ~ irI.levspoy
Mr. nrsty sid he to show by the witness that
there we're other papers called Police Gazettos, aud
that the article in the ohio paper did not psrJ-
ually to the Poiies Gasate Of NewYork.a The Court
AH hat .nff
d. vas naemssitle. The witness then aersd
, aside.
Henry Long examined Was Ia March 1919 doing
business at 50 Ann street was then acquainted with
tb. hrn 81 Dexter Brothers; tho fra was composed
Of Eerry Dexter and Geo. Dexter their place Of bust
Dtst was 10 The upper part OF ~ Ann street 80
thty carried on the sue Of news papers; they had
sign there OF Dexter Brother; they sold the Fohe
G0sst; witness did rot sell news apers; knows ohm
Th'mas hs place of business was In the lower part
Ann street, the lett hand side, opposite the ngue
llohss; Thona. sands M q printer; don't know that
| he T.; We have nevrr cone any business with hu.
Croes-' xHminrd- Does no. know positively til & his
tfico was 10 that building; in mis- ofoe but
| II was in that patt 81 The street.
| Al,xsnd'r Whitiock examibsi-Is printer, In the
,mpio.meDt OF Joan ThtDss, st % Ann street. for
ness rss ct 10 sprrce street. he had other 0face
/ or Fhee OF business at that time, to witness
knowledge; be hss three presses; remembers that
he once or twice printed three or or tour tokens
Of ths Foi,c. taaeiis that sent from the
tfloe oDder Tire Surdev DisgG'ck knows Udel; was
is his oihec docs not know uho owned the pre-se;
there were no presses cent from Spruce street TO
Ann ttrs CT, Dce witness M to work t1cfe; is
there wss no press cent from Spruce rtr,-. to Ann
street In March April last does not know whether
there vsssny onpnsSion H. business between Ude and
Thomas; he did rot fuI nish paper men, or help OF
any Hind TO Udsh. to carry on his work
cross sxsmi ned Does not know at hat particular
| time u oss tokens so,ked "a.
Mr. Grady here put in the libel So proved
John Thomas one Of the defendants, sxaEined.-fs
printer, in March. 1919 his pace Of business wsH
located 81 OIL Ann stIeot was sent there in Noveni
Der previous.
! may Ie sdseel BY counsel o-wou!d your ans rers
render you liable TO prosecution 1 do q know
| whether they would OF not. They might.
DsfVDdAnts couus.. then vent to argue that II
Wa dhcrsiioDal with dott neanS TO sn.wsr or not.
NAT Brady cont.nded that defendant waived ms
privilege by having put In answer to the complaint
Ths court deeiesd tina, upon The wItuess's own d..
elsraiiop he " AZ bound to answer.
witne.s-AOout November, 1s4s printed che Tue
SLH the press that went TO Ann street; True s.n
having died snd wines hsvirg no aso for tie prss.
he desirous to cell 1t. Udel came to Witness and
told him he could get ~ofk II be- witness, would lot
him have the pres. wnes. said Re woul like to sell
it, but Uds ssid he could buy It, but sad he could
set the prin tlpg Of the Pile. Ges.s rrd e6y Di1
patch he had press; witness then told him that he
might have IT, on condition th.t he, witness, should
have trouble by H. and thstn he tcok in any bad
work that would not be paid for, witness should be
indemnihed against the loss; upon which he took the
rrrss and IL has since continued there my business
was in Spruce street, and did not tie Police Ca
Efit Tor weeks; removed the ether presses to Ann
street in May last.
ow hat share did yeu get for tie pay thu P0';c,
! Gos,ns A-Jdell coi!tots sufficient 70 pay him.e.t
End thsn passes over The balance to witness What
Is the stsndars BY which he takes Lis pay by
the work that is done; witness hired the far
nished The place and the PROSE-, ut the tima Udel
| CIcss exsmInsa-udell WI. to b, paid according to
the work done, the amount varies each. rom $50 to
fi5 be pays bis hands out Of those thu
may be lie allowed me i21t cents fer every token
vss 70 be paid about that sum; at any rate. any
less 20 made vas lis bis gay wa: t. be tins balance
after paying 12. cents per token that agreem- mt
was tie Liberation ior furnishing the press the
bills have collected always made cut In lay own
| bsue
Direct examination resumed The bills for printing
the Poi.os Gaaets, N March, 1872 we're made out in
The tor the plaintiff -ss here r-rtcd
| Dofendabts counsel su1 Sod they would
claim tLe oisohaIse Of defendant, Thomas, on the
usnha INST no itrtneribip between the parties was
proved. Amer the examination OF tbs defendant
I Thomas hms.f simple letting oUt OF the prsss by
him 10 Jaell was only proved re cont 1dcd taat Cae
| was the principal In "a tbs transactions between
them. ucrl vas TO hne hands % psy tn-u', 70 run
the press sc, ard tor the use OF the PIE. Thomas
was 20 receive ecrtnis hxt price aud that be, Tho
mas vss nos 90 Be respontb- fot any loss thai might
happen bus Was % BE- indompihsd BY Udeil, and, 1t
all events IVES TO be secured IN tho l2n cents per te
Ken. Court,l thcE went On % Grgse that tbs com
rl,int fhould be di.ri.std against al the parties, IN
| ssmucs as there no evidence 10 chow that the
prntid wRs be pertou alluded 20 IN the lbel the
other hand there Il intrinsic evidence in the libel It
/ SET that = vas another snd 1ihercn pefsoa that
vas sliuGtG 20 ia The Poce Gaztfe namely, relative
Of tie nAintn and rot the iaiatif there vac there
fore nothing tho ib,l itsf & sh)r ts the plain
I extrinsic COT " that fact
MT Brady In reply, c3utepfsd that on reading he
htel even In tbs most popuirr ntr no cue could
ito believe that II vas lCggd AZ Nc Pratt ths cd
hor Of tse M,rci anis Lslrsr. Ths apology. after.
/ rares pntlhhed by hr lkes, rbs conciu.ite that
the paihtih wGs the p~Tsun meant b. acsnouiccsns
tbst u was fctlng the Article in the N-4ts Lsds,r
that insiigsttt him 70 -tio tho libsl DO lutw ia
psnih Nas The editor o. tie Lsfgr sod Therefore he
muft nave irttndt that the libel sh1uld appy n him.
moreover tlcie IL prot by defendant that there
vas any such person ~ msnti"nrd Va the deisnIant
sntwe on he contrary they had thown that plaintiff
Las no relation OF the Of frascis ~. Prs, the
prison nsntd Ia Gefen iants 70 vas therefore
idt nc contend that defendant ccult have cortfmps.
| plaintiff
| ntfencants Couuee' replied
IhoNouft in deciding on Interpretation TO df lhsrre
| Mr. ILona5 weIt Over his tv.douc p. ant 7sit that
lrom On at alive consideration q IL hs would con'id
ef bm 70 10 the principal "a the work carried On w
Ann street. aud as such the ease ne 90 him should
60 We JutJ. As 20 tho othrf psrties q was enough
90 bear ~ mind that Go G. nts ute ali5,l tg vas lot