The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-02-25

to proceed alone ne Wished arss TO cali on the stsnd
. ssntlemsn NON the County Clerks once In New
attend why he there could not tell unless
IL vas that il was si~svs disst TO secure the
attendance OF public ofhcers han OF other parties
AS The witness not In attendance he would put In
certified copies Of certain doou subject Co
dietmsnt found in Nss york 18th January, isas,
against William y. Andres and Charles II. Carpenter,
onssxins Carpenter :. an ssssssory amer the fact
General Mathsr wished to know What the defence
Nj Brsdy proposed d 70 ssos sbst andre, vas
counterfeiter, and ono OF the witnesses produced
against Carpenter He nelt rendered the record Of
conviction In the Municipal Court OF Boston against
T.F Young, obtsined In the October term, 1877 for
having counterieit money In his possession.
Mr. Jordan who hst just entered the COURT wanted
TO see how much OF the judgments the court would ad
mh. What were the charges here He was quite sure
the court would carefully vxclud. Irrelevant mat
ter ard he had Therefore been less jealous in watch
Ing the course adopted but he must look to what
were the charges The libel charged sheldon and
Frsslsod With having s~'ndlsd and robbed Carpenter
and having employed Andrea to impugn his chArsc-
ter and With EMPLOYING supple tool in the Yoiss to
arrest him Ine learned counsel here raA the words
Of the libel The first charge certainly inaire,t
but the implication was irresistible tina. they
Carpenter. Thee, that they had "employedn-and he
begged tie court would mark that expression; TO en-
ptoy man In ems sense witne IS in the ordinary
way was no izut crime but in another 1t
a1rep, dsmnasle and witbering crime If 1t meant
oning or tribIpg him 70 commit perjury. II they
mean, that they hA3 merely saopceossd AMI sxsninsd
him, thai was no libel and no harm done. par.
dousd convict competent witness. True ~ was,
he came into tainted aud that n required cor
robetaTicn but ATTY one prosecuting, had perfect |
right 70 cal any competr person But ne nusth here
suppose the word vas ustd 10 It's offensive s-nse else
none o. u en- bad any right 10 con plain Tae mex
charge was that they haa employed supple tool |
tte rtiit--that tupple, cringiug |
awning wretch, that they could mould Ike wax |
10 her purposes Who that miserable devil !
might o. they hht act cond' sendsd to inform them
II m3ht s-rLsps mean Mr.. Mstssll, the Chsf of tina
Ne~ York Poi'cs-is might be ta- MAYOR Tor he
~ his ofhesa part Of the poles He did not suppo,.
tLey useu- in tice Drinker To- he III IL frisnd
All pshae' II applied to him might be too near the
truth All the tirsde tia; this c,se wss opsned with
last night they had listened t~,nsy times before
but d. was conhdsnt the jury would lake little heed
OF H. II they die, srt beEad It. then s.ald thsy the
prosecutor Be put down by clsmgr. The counsel for
the Gsis was attempting TO prove that j Young
VS. s.ity OF forgery whSt OF y pa ne ,eek 70
vernon and Council Of hasaohusetis! For, be 1t re-
nsnbs red at Mass ohusetts there was council TO
sdv.s- the Gov.Snor such matters and he supposed
they had in their ciscrt ten good right to parden
BIN o. sOy other executive hsd T. pardon a cenvict
suppose b was fslan eoun eI fs.s4rwhat OF that
Thy were Est 20 try that The fret qu.ssion
dill they eIuPlcy him. BY proving he is a counter
hogS. they should drst show that the plsinsn.s
en- fioJed him, not imply By subpgnsiny him ami /
gsiig on building castles in the sr' without any
foundation, and he would ask il they could go ato |
the hidd salvage Company employed him The same /
observations would apply 10 Andres. n they meant 1
that Is va, h. chat ~as smplo7ed sub-ttu'ing the
meme, snd that Of Governor Young for Governor I
Bgiggs OF Massachusetts,. 4" He vas parioned.r said
the learned gentleman yesterday - the unprsce.
tented coadision that be would testify" II Andres
had persuaded him that ne could testifJsna that he
knew enough 10 conves the head OF the party the pro-
c,tdpg vas not az all unprecedented and Audros
vas by Their orn stssam.nt merely retailer Let
them prove tnat be was employed fret the word.
drst IN order. aud have the tried like
Gauss, soi act conducted As town meeting In so
serious sai com ple<ted a matter Involving such q
rau!tiipds II facts and spreading Massachusetts,
and tic st.s ttsy should DOT be permitted to give
svds 81 anything irrelevant When
they proved hat they ID them then the court
hey AL 0s ham
prove what these men were and that they had been
psrjonsd ~ The Executive Of State, Tor corrupt
puTpoees THIS the nature OF his sction to the
production Of Z hes jldg nsnts.
The Juo:s-Do you propose to prove that these
Mr.. Brady Certainly.
Mr. Jotosn eon,enesd that they should .hor SON.
upon The question Of the in which the term
sss uEta Diau mesn that they we're hi;sd
The Court held that IL oetiously meant that thsy i
had improperly us.d" them.
sr Joresn Wished TO know whether tho CO art wOuld
rot hssi rtqgire the dsiencs to ;hoF that they had
The Court ruled that It mere question Of order
and IN tLrs discretion ana that they would slov the
ttteLce 10 proceed IN The eoaEse they had adopted
Sir Rsacg thea prosssdt 20 give account OF tie 2
Socuntsts TN rSaord from tie " unio 9.l Court a
Boston was ola ju gnent sgsinst oans upon the let
end ID unts zach cbarsiug him With possession Of
counterfeit money snd upon each ;oun' s-ntenceof \
years nY risof meLt that va. tour years in all /
lie then p8t in four Indictments found ia New York
against Aniros stone, al Tor ps"iss counssrfsit
Inousy an upon 81 q Shoh h. had plea led guilty.
Judks ~oot hcre la eIrup'sd the counsel sud
assed ~ho1, Be meant 70 show a. having been en.
Mr. Bfsay ,.id that vas IN. ain .rlsy; the jury
might hnd one -. enpl7ysd sai l. sss necessary 70
.ho~ that both Eere svu1terfvitsrs
rhs Court Bat you saot 70 beyond proving the
tIsth 81 - silsgstisns IN the libel
Mr. Brady contend y Pal EN- )ioJ ei both in the
renss the oct ndARt hsd used the word
The CoErt oh that IL suother question.
A discussion tolo&ed in shich It Va. con.enied by
Mr. Brady that A. nan ssd tasy employs d count.r.
fstsr and rhss.e thai they mad en- play-t twenty, u
would be = Qualification And on the other hand, BY
"a Nat has n h. IN h0
they meant and not give evidence about thou,sni,
and 20 20 The jury ~i.n the whole msss OF testimony
that the employment was TO D. shown that Mr. Brady
should be atl1 red 10 procssd
Mr Bra1y proceeded accordingly. plea 81 guilty L
was taken on The 18th OF June 1913 upon ths whole
four Indictments and sitsr@srds Withdrawn BY leave
Of the court 40 TO three OF theuas 10 Of thos.
three the pie. ~ nos guilty va rs..n.sred October
9th and ths other two O3t0b-r f.h, 1912 Toe .
next 80 "a .nde'n-pt sgaia.t Charles H. Carpenter
alone - al accessory before th- fat. upoa which he
tried IA october 1919 rhcn trial was tn.
ferred 70 % tse neei. Upon tina: h vs,scquisted
Mr.. Jordsa Where j. the sVidsas. OF that
Mr. grssy.-Ths sndofse ment on the paper.
Mr. Jsfdsn That h. net evidence
Mr. Brady.-Ths original rec I'd viii be here
Mr. Jofdfu We want evidence Of that acquitts
for particular purposs
Mr BraGy.-we viii prove u.
NJ stlsanu. Poet va hen called and examined
Lived nov - oossnsAury, Westcns.tsr county from
1874 "a i64, lived in loklsbd county sni hsf sons
thing . 10 az the DuEdsrburg mountain Ia 1888 ani
Gsastsl Naih.r Objected 10 any evii.nss Of trans
actions a thar period aud hoped tas court -ouId
The evidence 10 th- 81 ths sxistsncs OF the
otiy etmTnnT uhlch Wa IN o-pg Al tns tine Ia. AZ,
tcis appeared. The nsr compsuy Nss orran1sd 10
1919 sHd hey we're going iGto matters winch took
place 10 1871 o. before. This -itn.,. bal beso sm.
plCJed b. the old company which hal no sxstenosst
Tie tias 81 The libel
TIE Govt There seem. 20 have been TOO iistinc.
,rgaoisat0ns and II after the sesond ths 0s APP
pesftd
NJ Rtasy ,.d they hsd 70 srope after sviI.se. o.
thir Neither sheldon Cr Frssttni hal been called on
the sstd bot they had this tact, that Mr.. Flrrson
~ both having ofieins,'i the dr't, aud n. pro
cssdsd 70 a-gu. that 10 wa e1ntinD0n, c1aesrn
ard that II mpetsnt 20 dsi~pfent 70 JuEtfy by
-hovlng fraudulent scts by any one u the company
or an aotheriEtd agent.
genersl Msther contendsd that they could not make
me claimants liable Tor the IL - The old 5any
bu thpy would b- liable for thee done By any persons
.his they we're ooBuscf.d and against such acts
they would defend thsse men CO 500 them aFay tom
'-fN'. - -.