The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-03-18

p0o009
nisoed uDon the record to that eNsst
Court cSnsSss tn. e. :: sro n
0n :, Sor but net an rssoeded % 70 b
legally binding therefore ruls It from the minutes
- Jarvis. Jr, sworn[l was member Of the Com nit.
Union during the Year, 1850 and 1851; have reco
lection Of having spoken at any time to Mr. Monk Mr.
hours: never spoke to them about it,
Cross examined By Mr.. Darlngton-f have never said
70 Mr. Monk that the plaintiff rendered such services
thsre he should bs paid for it, said he had been paid
in full before he should not be paid again know Mr.
O'Clock; never saw HIM work on sundays: / have
known persons to receive money, other than their
regular salaries. from the defendants; Mr. Monk
when in the employ Of the institution, received
mitss q and Of the E.ssasSs COMMITTEES Of
h. the employees Art Union we're n the
with it, It my suggestion Robert Kss, offered rssoia
tion which think reduced to writing and adopted
an h s " that the
do not know If it were made . matter Of record.
The Court ruled out this testimony upon the ground
that it had right to that body Ake the Art
Union Of consequence in the State transacted their bust
ness in an informal manner.
Witness continued-I have knowledge Of Hasen's
performing extra services for the there had
been such extra services rendered. would have known
it. rs the claim would have been sent 10 the xecutye
committee OF which was member; it was my business
TO audit the accounts.
ouestion-what authority if any, had Joseph Monk to
Answer-He had none.
Witness contnucd-I have been the Art Union rooms
on Sundays; have seen employees working there upon
tn days do what services the plaintiff
dered upon Sundays at he rooms.
tiff know that Mr. Monk had no authority to employ
the plaintiff for extra services member Of the
Executive Committee, which alone could give such
thorty: this is my only of knowledge; do not
vices do not know that Monk did not employ per
sons for such services; know that Mr. Warner did
ploy persons for extra services
Mr. Jarvis, Jr, recaled-I acted Recording secre-
tary state that there is no resolution UPON the
books directing persons not to work upon Sundays
Mr. Darlington ch;ected to she contents Of the re,olu-
ton being given in evidence unless it brought nome
thereto and also upon the ground that the proceedings
OF such committee could only be learned from an su.
thentcated record Of its proceedings.
Witness coninued-At a meeting of the Committee OF
Management Mr. r. Kelly and Mr.. Benedict suggested
resolution that the employees of the institution should
keep away from the Sunday the resolution was
unanimously approved by quorum of the committee
but was not entered upon the minutes II considered
unnecessary TO do So it a resolution prevent Ia
Dor on Sunday; do know if it was ever reduced to
writing the committee directed that il was not
necessary to have it on the minutes cannot AZ the
time when IT done; not positive to the year
IN which it passed Mr. Cozzens the President;
cannot fix the time.
Wis has spoken passed in March April passed.
wrote letter to Colonel Warner instructing him to
ployes that they could not there on Sundays; I
was particular that the letter should be formal and
Sundays after that tme but Immediately after after
that time other members Of the Committee Of Man
sgement there Sundays there work there
on sunday after that ime that is not to my positive
knowledge never gave Hszen work to do on Sundays
after June 1885, never took up his book Sunday
amined it. and returned it to him. have never seen Ha
zen work there on Sunday, to my knowledge.
George Barrett, sworn-I have been the Art Union
rooms three four nights between the LIST of Oc
tober 1850 and the lst of March, 1851 went to see
person who was employed there; know Hazen; only
to have seen him once there those evenings
IN incl ave limit hcr0
Cross examined by Mr. Darlington-I am now in the
employment Of the American Art Union Mr.. Warner ask.
ed me If knew anything about the action said s.yes'
DO not know positively that Hazen was not at work
when went there Twas not intimate with him. there il
down there Ihave known the plaintiff since the fall
of 1850 spring of 1851 cannot state which.
further POSTPONE the hearing Of the until
ten O'Clock next Wednesday morning This was done in
order to meet the convenience of counsel either sde
The trial OF the cause of Hazen the American Art
Union resumed at eleven o'clock yesterday morning
the defendants. The following testimony taken
Henry Johnston sworn, and examined by Mr.. Coe-I
1913 know his character.
Q.-What is his general character?
The form OF this question objected to- The Court
ruled that properly put but his Honor did
the necessity for counsel 20 into that particular
Mr.. Coo said that Mr.. Monk having made threats and
attempted to expose the Art Union and having procured
thought,
that purpose the defendants wish show him the gal
lows he has himself erected.
Answer OF wtness-ln my estimation it is
Objected to by plaintiff unset and allowed by the
Court.
witness-It is bad
Q-From your knowledge of his general character,
would you believe him uIder oath?
Al would not.
Cross examined-I have had personal knowledge Of
him he employed by the firm of which was a mem
Der in Boston, for about two years failed in business
think do not ordinarily associate with Mr.. Monk;
civ in in
to another case think the trial in the year 1Si5;
the Court held in this building Of the de-
PENDANTS in the action think the plaintiffs Beers
Eogart, Mr. Monk called upon testify against
me Iheard testimony then given general char
the any one from memory, who testified in that
suit charged with detraudng creditors do not
acter since that time; have not associated with Mr.
Monk since that time before the for trial
heard nothing against his general character speak of
his character with reference to the time the on
cannot state what any particular witness said that
time with regard 70 his character do not know in par
tcuar other OF his general character only than what
heard at II at time
Question by Mr.. Coe-What was the result OF that
trialy
Objected to, ruled out irrelevant, and exception
taLer)
James r. Whitipg-I know Mr. Monk: don IT know that |
say know his general character that is far
know the meaning of the term last ten or twelve
have only seen Mr. Monk occasionally; have not
had intercourse with his associates have been repeat
eddy inquired Of to his character during that time
have heard speak Of it if that constitutes his
general character, know it, when first knew Mr Monk
his character very good knowledge Of his charac
ter is changed very materially since that time II II
changed and for the worse that is be has LOST his cha
racter with the gentlemen with whom ! associated
who knew him when | first knew him. those gentlemen
expressed change Of opinion to years ago the
expression strong against him that was among
the last to give him up have known him nearly thirty
years: my acquaintance with him continued down to
1s4o think.
Q-From your knowledge Of his character, would you |
believe him under OATH
Al should say if Mr.. Monk had no interest st all in
the subject Of controversy would believe him, but il
Mr. Monk deeply interested in the would hest
tate to believe him, for the that think he is
governed in such by his passions than by his
judgment
Cross-examned-I don't think / ever had any per- !
sopal difficulty with Mr.. Monk; ! have heard nearly
four hundred times that Mr. Monk has spoken i'll OF
me, but paid very little attention TO IT. the diff
cutes spoken about occurred regarding the Seventh
Ward Bank, Of which ! was director; I sustained |
him in his position clerk there against the de.
sires and Wishes OF fellow drectnr.. they CON.