The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-26

accurate recollection Of Mr. L~xowis position ut the
time II was small room and all co-e together
Cross exaniin>d.-Jenklns examined at great
length and all the matter OF this charge introduced
Thought Crassou was examined the counteretng and
not on the torpedo charge bat the examinations would
show They discussed AZ their meeting the amount a
bai-twenty or thirty times.
Q-Was II after that discussion this conversation
took place!
Ale could not be accurate az Mr.. Lexow His
impression il before the examination The dis
cussion 10 the amount of bail and the taking Of the
eounterfeitn1 charge. took place on the same day.
Q.-How long an interval
Ale looked upon Il the transaction.
The Cour-IIaving regard to tho nature OF this con-
sultation all Of opinion that it is not in the
ture Of privileged communication Exception noted)
and
Mr. Lexow recalled After the argument in regard of
bail through, Mr. Clark addressed the magistrate
about what next to be DONE aud he said il had been
stated that the money stolen from the District Attorneys
Office, which alleged to have been taken from Mr..
Drury was good money. Something more was said
about the Assistant District Attorney While he
speaking in that way, believe Justice Lothrop went
out. or he m have remained till he got through,
. The cour-lf Mr. Lothrop went out, to whom was
Mr.. Clark speaking.
Witness--Ile may have been speaking to himself Mr.
Druy said sorry those notes have been stolen for
they we're good notes and now am accused OF having
stolen them. Mr. Clark said, Who accuses you Of hav
ing stolen them Was IL Lexow2n Drury said, +" think
IT was" About five minutes after that, the examine
tion Of witnesses the counterfeit money charge
taken up
o.-Bo you know Marcu. Tullius Cicero Stanley,
Al know Marcus Cicero Stanley.
Q.-Whst connection had he with Mr., Wilkes!
A.-None whatever
Mr.. Whiting objected that he could not legally know
this and the TACT could not be proved by this witness ~
all.
The Court said he could only speak Of to his
own knowledge.
Witness continued ATTENDED the examination on tho
10th mber lsi9 at the Police Court reporter had
no interest whatever in this case Mr. Wilkes had taken
quite considerable interest; had reported all Mr..
Drury's trial. had made them fairly.
QDo you refer to reports of the different trials
and do you mean to say that they always fair
curate and truthful
Witness would explain.
If he would not answer, counsel would withdraw the
question.
Q.--was it your business to report testimony, and
speeches and remarks!
QIIave you ever written any articles outside the
ports?
Any impression Is that no one but Mr. Wilkes has
ever written article ON the Drury trials.
Q1ias there been single paper since his first arrest
that has not contained something about him!
Al believe there has; don't know which.
f.-No. ' S -'''N "'''' ''' ''>'''
q.-Did he write report of the Rat counci'
A.-No.
Q.-Who did?
Al don't know. Witness had Thompsol at
the office; him at Wkess house; they had frequent
communications not within the last seven or eight
months had not met more than or twice. they had
communications frequently mp to the time Of Drsrys
acquittal he had bcon acquitted twice. the first time
was in February and the second in September, 1850
Q-Up to that time was he not frequently in commu-
AThey were after the arrest of Mr. Drury, but very
rarely previously.
Q.-Who is the Boston Correspondent, II. ATT
Objected To.
Mr. Clark had right to put the question, to test the
accuracy of the witness II it should out that it
was the witness
The Court-You have a right whether ii il and So
1t may be something we have nothing to do with
Q.-You have seen articles under the signature Of
A-No. don't read them. do sometimes, but not
always read the paper report for,
o.-Don't you know the term powder Fierd has
Al believe have.
The Judge-You yourself have used it.
Q.-Murderer
Q.-Assassin
A-No
Q-Then your reports legitimate records Book
containing very extracts from the Police Ga-es handed
up and report pointed out dated January IS lsty)
witncss-That II my report.
MIR Clark will read IL.
WitncssI doubt whether II i all mine take part
sometimes from the Iirdkd.
The report then rad. IL was headed The Infer
nal Machine aud proceeded TO give description If Mr.
guilty Of the torpedo charge
Mr.. Clark-When you wrote that had you III feeling
against Mr.. prury
Witncss-None.
Q-why do you not keep back any expression Of cpin.
ion and why do you call him the powder hcnd'
Ale had been styled 81.
4 Dir. Clark-Iy wilkes; was he 50 by anybody else'
Al don't know.
Q-You say they fair and truthful statements Of
what occurred Is IL not fairly in keeping with your
general reports,
A-Untl he was acquitted kept up writing about
him like that.
Q-werc there not articles in that paper adverse to
Drury up 10 a.. morrows date,
Objected to unless written by witness; withdrawn
" itncss believed hc had hrst communicated what
he lad heard Drury say at his examination to
Wilkes ON the evening of the same day; did not
know that he communicated II ut all after that
day until several months afterwards after this
disposed of by the magistrate he spoke about it, did
not iorc because until after that did not think of
AN imp ltlip he hulg tu
about thrc months ago NJ the court Il wts two years
since II occmrrd never spoke TO Mr. Drury but once;
Wikes well known to bc developing all the plan but
not In eony,ctng Dtuiy IL meant that Wilke' had ~
wi-h about conyieing irury his examination Drury
ssid very ltl,-nohng but what witness had stated.
Q.-was not tls what bc said-that he sorry the
bills had been stO FOR thsy might have been good; he
never had seen the and no hc was accused u stealing
th,m'
Ale sorry they bad been stolen, aud indignant
at heirg accused.
Q-Did not tn pe,ce Cosriie accuse him Of stealing
them,
A-No: bcli,ve the contrary.
The Cuurt-Me cannot 50 into the cont nte. unless
Mr. L,xow admits he wrote H. IN article nom Pohfr
WnesS dd nct know the author he never had accu.ed
Mr. Dury of stealing them had accused some one cise;
wa surr II that conversation present hut
nrufy aud his and Mr CLARK; Enrs Tom Ganru.c by
sight. d, had b~u pointed out % him ID the street,
knew lev, CoIc. lad srcn Cancuse m tho succ.
never av tht With staney four i've ygsr. ago stan
y ct,d With tie po,ce Gascftc bat at the
time oi the Drury matter.
liem - Jrniins was rccalod-and subject N the
xc,rtion before notod TO all secondary cyidcnre - the
contents a the h IN question: further stated that thc
lls wtrc a. hght color apparently new. very it'll
us,d, on the mioac Il the bi spread eagle
the top part uf the b, the rght hand top corner
81 the h Ehodc Iland" In capitals very iudistnrI
II II something had been taken out; they
The denomination Il 80 the Eaglc lsaak, Brstw
the bottom wbs the nsme of lie Baron, they were al
marked with the hotter has we'll ~ can rccllcct, al
alkt have recollection Of the cashiers name unless
Il was IL Baron. tEore wgre two names. and dnut
know whether Le naruns there president cash
ir genuine ~ bill handed 10 witneSs) that u IN,
dollar bill the right hand side top corner Ia "a
uthcrs we're ten aud NhtIe leland ever them; should
say that hill fac-simile. except 10 the dcnpmi
nation, ~ those ! got trtm Nr. Drury.
V.-lou have spoken of meeting between Bristol
Biil and others. (the rat councill When vast hat
A.-,n the 18th november lsig.
U.-Who was there
A-Smith there. and Miss Van Brunt. who had
Il the house.
Objected TO- not arising out of the cro.scxamina-
tcp and that the witness only to be recalled as to
the bills.
The Court did think that they could 90 into that
The District Attorney argued that they might put II
IN a. rttutting testimony, the defendant having put in