New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-10-20

would say something Of his past history The exist
ing contract between the City and the Gss Company
had Eve years TO run when bill was Introduced into
the Common Council providing that new osutrsct
should be made on great deal better terms FOR tho
Company; and the man selected for lobby-menber 10
support this contract was Mr.. Erben. With al his
inducements said Mr. Willard, there was one man IN
the Common Council whom he could not reach. That
man Was Thomas j. Barr. When II cane into the
Board Of Assistant Aldermen, il wasreerred TO con-
uitiee of FIVE of which Mr. Barr was one. -Four were
in favor of H. but ne was ouncompromisngiy opposed
to 1t that be alone presented minority report az snst
Ii passed during his accidental absence, but he
had already delayed il nearly TO the close Of the
session that after the veto of Mayor Kngslsnd, there
was no time to pass il through the Board again. He
then went to speak OF the character OF GeorgeJ
Smith, witness who would probably be brought on
the defense.
Mr.. Whiting, counsel for defendant, objected TO
the discredting Of person before it was known he
to be a witness. 1t was a violation Of every
principle of law.
Mr.. Brady responded that ii was indispensable 10
the understanding OF the case. He utterly denied
that they were transccndng any principle even Of
taste 1t was only by opening such polluted slaices
of testimony that the charges made by the defendant
could be sustained.
His Honor said that he should ccnfne tho case to
that particular publication. lie considered that tho
counsel for the plaintiff had gone too far.
Mr.. Whiting strenuously objected to that mode of
opening case by illegally introducing remarks
about a v tDess which they the DEFENDANT would
not be permitted to dsprOve.
His Honor said that il the plaintiff introduced
these remarks to show malice on the part Of the de-
fendant, he might be permitted to proceed
Mr.. Willard said that they did intend to produce
this evidence Of express malice. After this charge
was made by Mr.. Erben, and when Mr. Erben found
that Mr.. Barr would probably sue him, he broughts
charge against Mr. Barr before the Recorder for this
very thing, and attempted to prove il by the test-
| mony of this same Geo J. Smith. II was promptly
dismissed. He then had the audacity to swear him
self to the facts of the charge. And his learned
friend Mr. Whiting) who counsel for Mr.. Erbea
now his counsel then. Was not this evidence OF
malice Every one Of the Jury had some one who
was bound to them by some social tie, who trusted
ard confded in them. They could bear to be calum-
mated before others, but before such never.
He asked the jury they hoped to be left pure and
uncontamnsted by the breath of malice, to consider
Mr.. Bars claims TO reparation.
Moses S. Beach sworn--On the 25th Oct. last re-
propreters of The Sun; at meeting Of about twenty
persons in my house heard Mr.. Erben speak of Mr..
Barr as having received money for police appoint
ment; he had seen check which was used to procure
such an appointment this In substance was repeated
several times; Mr.. Barr was not present. he was
Alderman at that time; Mr.. Erben spoke Of knowing
Mr.. Barr
Cross examined by Mr.. whiting--I then resided
=. A. S;.,t,N IL. na. for
Ward, and was then candidate for State Senator.
Mr.. WhtDg-Who called this meeting Objected
to by Mr. Brady
Mr. Whiting proposed to show that at that time,
by public rumor, corruption was rife In the City;
that Mr. Barr was candidate for the suffrages Of
the electors and that a, such time his client would
have right to discuss the character of Mr.. Barr
freely. He contended that he had right to plead
that in justife alton or in mitigation Of the alleged
charges.
His Honor ruled that it could not be plead In JUST
fcaton.
Mr.. Brady said that the defendant was here to
prove bis charge. He had not denied malice. There
war, therefore, no such thing as mitigation.
Mr.. Whiting then put it the ground that he had
right TO question the witness TO the time, place
and circumstances under which this meeting took
place II was alleged in the complaint that the plain
tiff was slandered in the presence Of the electors.
| His Honor overruled and exception was taken.
O. Was Mr.. Erben invited there 7
His Honor ruled out all evidence in relation TO the
circumstances Of the meeting
Q. Were the qualifications Of Thomas J. Barr q
subject Of discussion at that meeting, candidate
His Honor said that no mitigating circumstances
were plead. The whole defense was limited to the
proof of the charge.
Mr.. Beach-These charges were made in the course
of a speech addressed to the whole meeting; the
question was the general subject Of Reform Of the
City Government; he said either that he had seen Il
or that be knew Of IT, do nofrecollect when or where
he had seen the check, only that he knew Of 1t.
Louis NJ Pease examined by Mr.. Brsdy-I was m
Mr. Beachs house on the occasion referred to- WA
then Superintendent Of the Five Points House Of In
dustry; cannot say that heard Mr. Erben speak Of
Mr.. Barr; heard some one speak Of him. have an
impression that the man who spoke Of Mr.. Barr was
Mr.. Erben.
Brady-What is your impression that he said
Objected 10 by Mr.. Whiting.
Mr. Pease-He said that he knew Of Mr.. Barr re-
eeving, for police appointments, from Is to 800;
will not be about the IS; am sure Of the 600;
! Immediately checked him, and asked him IL he
could prove the allegation he said that be could
knew Mr.. Barr previously; did not know Mr.. Erben.
Cross examined by Mr.. Whiting-I had known Mr..
Barr for about four years have never received any
favors from him; | attended by invitation Of Mr..
Beach from eighteen to twenty-five persons were
present
Mr. Whiting-Were the qualifications Of Mr.. Barr
the subject Of discussion By other persons at that
meeting
Mr.. Pesse--I heard all that was said, because
paid particular attention; told Mr. Barr next day Of
Il. I Lnazd .ka zuhnrn 1 zunrozed