New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-06-22
TRIAL OF DRURY.
Another Postponr meat of the ForG


CuY CoURT-Before Judge Greenwood, Alder
men Taylor and Van Voorhis-Tri Of Saagel
Dyary for Forgery ~ the Second D,yrne-fWe
quote the report OF the D..Hy Aareriissr.l-rhe
indictment set forth that the accused had in his
posse sson IN the months of October and N,venber
last sundry bills purporting TO be Of the AMOUNT Of
$40 each. altered from genuine Ia OF the agile
Bank Bristol, Rhode Island, with an infant -
utter or pass the same II B. Doryea, ESQ Dis
.riot Attorney, and Judge Rockwell on behalf of
the Attorney General, appeared for the proseou.
ton: James II Whiting and Horace f. Clarke
Esars for the accused About lOl O'Clock James
II. Whiting made apple alton Tor a further post.
ponement Of the case, in consequence Of the ab-
sence Of material witness Of the name Of Daniel
Finn, row out of this vicinity, and would not re-
turn before the end Of Jnly next. Besides this the
learned Counsel was only Just recovering from q
three months illness, and was utterly unfit ~ pro-
coed with long cause like this, which in all pro-
liability would last some eight ten days. Mr..
Clarke was at the present time engaged in another
cause which would not be over until the end OF the
ensuing week.
the defense to disclose the materially Of the evil
dence which this witness was TO give as the pro.
secution might be willing to concede 10 IT, j. H.
Whiting ESQ. said such course was never adopt
ed In criminal case it would be dangerous 10 the
accused TO do so, as the other might avail them
selves of il TO meet and defeat the object in view
ces he Mr. Whitng) hoped the counsel on the
other side would not press on the trial. Judge
Rockwell said that the affidavit was 100 vigue as
to due diligence having been made after the absent
witness: nothing whatever beyond the mere state
ment was given, which was not sufficient Inc
court was Of the same opinion. The affidavit was
insufficient in other respects the affidavit did not
state where the witness was at the present tlme
or when il had been ascertaned that the witness
had gone out of the way. The court was also OF
Opinion that the nature OF the evidence TO be gwen
by this witness should be disclosed rothat the Cours
iehtbe able to Judge of the value ofthe eydence,oe-
fore they could agree TO the postponement. Ineca
had been frequently put off before, and with the con-
sent Of the accused set down positively for thlsday
and county and witnesses quito further expense
James H. Whiting further supported ms notion
The District Attorney suggested that the Counsel
for the defense make known 10 the Court alone the
nature of the evidence the absent witness was to
give. so thst it could i1dge whether 1t was suth-
cient reason for postponement. The Counsel tor
the prosecution did not wish to see or know any
thing Of the nature OF the evidence it was merely
for the Court TO Judge Of the nature, worth, and
importance Of the evidence. j. IL. w hitting, Esq
opposed this proposition in most orcloe terms, as
being unusual and contrary to law, as the Court
could not tell the value OF such evidence until the
whole was in. The Court thought the suggestion
q reasonable one, and ought 10 be complied with
before further postponement was granted. Inc
COunsel Tor the defense pIOCcSucu W III Ous
the necessary afiidavits in relation 10 the motionfor
postponement The Court inquired where the wit
ness Finn as Counsel for defense replied they be-
eyed he was in Mas sachusetts at the present time.
Two affidavits were then sworn TO, one by the &C
cused, and the other by James Arlington Bennett,
one of the witnesses for the defense also OF per-
son of the name OF Boyd, who had been in search
of Finn without success. James X. Whiting, Esq.
then read the three additional attidayits made in
support OF the motion for postponement. The Court
suggested that the accused make affidavit OF what
he intended to prove by the absent witness tor the
consideration OF the Court and whether ne first as
certained that he was absent a few days since
This was done, and the Court consulted for some
time together then declared that they thought the
accused should have the benefit OF the evidence oil
this witness, as it might be material to him. Inc
Court then inquired when Drury ascertalned the
materality of the evidence Of this witness. The
counsel for the defense said it was only short time
SINCE He hoped the case would be put OIL over
the month of August, as that was vacation month.
The District Attorney hoped the case would not
be put off over the month OF August; 1t was ne
cessary for the ends Of justice that the case should
not be further delayed than was possible. inc
Court stated that August was no vacation month
in this country and thought the case should be pro-
ceeded with, as the public might be injured by
further delay II the case was not tried IN August,
il could not be taken up unit October D. H. WIZ
ting. Esq still hoped it would he postponed an1ii
October the public could not be injured thereby
The Court suggested that the case might be taken
Up at the end ofthe civil business in the July -er.
Mr. Whiting said they would, il possible, get ready
to have the case come on in July, bat if they could
not, he hoped they would be put over until the Oc-
tober term. Counsel for the prosecution hoped
further postponement beyond the August term
would not be granted. The Court then decided
the case should be adjourned TO the next Grim
inal term of this Court in August next.