New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-10-21

,.docsrea 4. told him that Smith woald give a.
much as any one soy smlln eeIw Iai and ap,
IN ,hat n &c got HE appointment, be woa'd uoooaOt
al, have 20 psy for it. Smith gave me go, benz
~ he money be rad ebout him and sad ne "2an
nav more lie requested me to make up ihe otoet
sSS and be would pay me. did 81. l then wen,
g. Alderman Barf add old him that Snh he1 paid
sIo0 on account A few days Giterwefd, Sni'n ss'@
noe $40 in addition 10 The si5 which ne h.l Oei9r'
pad ne s2s Of which he owed me, ana go aoai,
t;cnaI for Barr When | went again to barr ne s'id
.erv veil add gave me The nomination. theh
oh,sin.d Alderman koly's signature, and the
v.Y, day Smith vas sppointed by tho Mayor
aJrut he l9'b April 1850 the term Of office OF JohA
H.. s,nired he was a valuable officer though very
- man and as he was my hrst assistant, wss
III ~ lose him; Barr was unsllling 70 re-nQmaats
~, because Bant had supported the Foot ticket IN
nosi.ion 70 him; he said he was aware ~ hs beng
PPn5 oeesr but the party which supported him had
S,oncbt forward their candidates aud would expect
MIN o nominate some Of tbem he Afterwards renin-
5sd me that had offered to psy si0o, 8nd said be
rorN take II; I told BIn', and Bsnt said he could
,ahsns End some friend who would advance the mo.
new for him cid it for fear that Barr would change
bis mind. - 80,
were Police Captain know MAJ this system Of cor,
runtiop was wrong-legally and morally wrong
A don't believe that thought anything about 1t
bein0 wrong: this story was diyulged by A. NJ G.
smi,6. think that Aid. Erben came 10 and spoke
70 me about it, and that Rely asked me about II; l
was hen ON good terms with Aid. Barr; ceased to
be On MOOD terms with him about the fall Of 1851,
when was employed by hun to talk with Aid. Kelly
about moi running against Mr.. Barr; he became sus
pioous of me a. that tune; il was my intention TO
have answered questions but what was com.
peed TO- but thought 1t was due, my 0Un character
being vilihed, to clear up scandal; calculate hat
nv character is as pure and unmpugned as any
man In this body ! would not be here only for the
way in which i vilifed by the counsel on the
other aide; think have been injured by public
scandal more than Mr.. Barr or anybody else; have
been 90 long resident in New York az any Of you
here; your father, hr. Brady was guest at my
wedding; no was a gentleman who would ave nomi
mated ne for any Office. The Court stopped the
witness had made up my mind 70 refuse to an
ever any questions which the Court would not com
pei me 10 answer.
tact pent had been issued against me to compel me
10 attend learned from the investig alton before Re-
corder Tillou that would not be obliged to answer
such questions unless chose was absent yesterday
morning taking advice.
Cross examination rasumed.-Q. What lawyer told
YOU that you would not be bound 10 answer all these
questions. A. My common sense told me So
Brsdy.-I have not be ard that be Yves lawyer yet
Mr.. Smith. think he is the best Of lawyers.
His Honor Did you not assign as a reason why
YOU were not before the Court that your wife was
sick
Mr.. Smith, did.
Mr.. Whiiirg.-He told me, your Honor, both Of
taking advice and his sick wife. :, -
Examination OF Andrew W arner resumcuM Il
ben was foreman of the Grand Jury that called upon
the Recorder to make this investigations think IT
was the February term, 1883. -
Robert W Lowber was then called by Mr.. Whiting
for defense and sworn-Am acquainted with inonnas
j. Barr, plaintiff knew him when be was Alderman.
Q. Did you have any communication with HIN re-
latye TO the sale Of City property Objected to by
Mr.. Brady ~ not relevant. MIR. Whiting SAID ne
would state what they offered to prove. This was
also ole cted to- and Mr. Noyes replied for defense.
insisting right TO do SO: The Court said deienSe
had right TO state, but IT was a privilege Often
abused Mr.. Whiting said they offered TO prove that
the City owned property in Sixteenth-st In a con-
VIBRATION between Aid. Bar and this witness u was
proved that application should be made by witness
10 the Common Council TO purchase IL, and offer
certain price to the City, but 10 fact to pay more,
and that Aid. Barr was TO have the difference.
This was objected to and ruled out, as not being IN
the answer.
II was then stated that the defense have but one
more wines Mr.. A. NJ. L. Smith He not being
present the Court adjourned TO this forenoon.