The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-11-03

dcted for libel one Of the proprietors of Pau
nothing Of the article in question, and vas mae
liable be the of the house wherc the paper
was published; was sued bX man named Watson for gas
that the fittings were TO the pain inovedre for the
purpose Of gambling house; kne~s Mr. Mott OF Iich-
saG S To-
Mr. RoIestone-Was any OF the money lent to him in .
hell In Jermyn streetg
WitnessI win answer any question which the Court
Judge csmpton-YOu may answer that question II you
Witnees- decline to say any Of the money was lent
to Mr. Mott in hell, as IT does not concern the issue
Reexamined-rhe transactions as to which he had
been examined occurred Is 20 years ago.
knew Mr. Gregory until he suddenly disappeared from
the turf paid the amount Of the bills to Mr. Olaherty
as the agent Of the defendant
series private letters then given in evidence
written by Mr.. Gregory to Mr.. OF1sherty in order,
wa, stated BY the PLAINTIFFS counsel, to show the
authority Of to act for the other his agent and
s By rs ns%e Of 70
Dunkellin was frequently introduced into the
pondence; and in one letter. dated January 1913 the
defendant expressed his qualification that Mr. OFaherty
had been successful in inducing Jews and TO
become almost Christians, and mention made Of
OF the parties the caucasian IAzarus.n In another
the defendant expressed his desire in reference to bill
transactions to be considered very regular although
Celts regarded the REVERSE and subsequent let
ter the pleasure Of the writer that he was look
ing up much with the money lenders and that it
reserved for him to restore Irish credit in the financial
world" In other letters the defendant expressed him
self answering the fine figure Of Gratan, OF the
who felt his strength expanding as the letters were fall
clever novel OF Balzacs where thirteen acting in
cert we're able to effect 30 much but In real life he did
ness Win be equal to that Of Edmond oflaherty.,,
The plaintiffs counsel, after the reading OF these let
ters submitted that proof Of agency had been esab
place in the conversations between him and Mr. OFa-
herty in relation to the bills in question.
The learned Judge refused to receive evidence Of
such conversations
Captain Greene examned to prove that he brought
documents to the plaintiff from Mr.. +. o'Flaherty.
Mr.. Whiteside said these documents we're bills.
The struggle to prove an agency by Mr. O'Flaherty
the part Of the defendant give in dence against
him the statements and acts OF Mr.. OFlaherty,
newed, but without success.
Some other witnesses having been examined, and the
documents having been handed in, the plaintiff IS case
Mr. Marley applied for nonauit, the ground that
attempt had been made to prove the signature Of Lord
Dunkellin. dne Of the Ii directed to that.
His Iordship said he would not nonsut part of the
case The main question was whether or not the defend
Mr.. Marley Q. c., then proceeded to address the jury
and said that this not mere question Of pounds
shilngs pence but the issue was one that affected
| the honor and character OF Mr. Gregory. They AL
knew who that gentleman was They know who his IA
t. r and grandfather were and no name in Ireland
CORY, but that was reason why his grandson should
escape from liability he sought to avoid any OF his just
by entering into any inquiry regarded the character
Of the plaintiff, because whatever he might BE-, he
entitled to enforce it, The name Of Mr.. Edmund OFa-
hery had been frequently mentioned during the inquiry
and it notorious that the then shining
that he bad fed from his country after circulating and
obtaining money by means OF number Of forged bills.
ing learned counsel having advertei TO the value Of the
testimony given by the plaintiff, and the vsgueness of
the proof OF hand writing, not consistent with ITSELF
marked upon the TACT that although number Of persons
had associated TO aid the present they had also
forged accepances, they could only produce few wit
nesses to hsndwrtng and while the ledger clerk
Of the Commercial Bank, who Mr.. Gregory
WI prOd iced
did not produce the check clerk whose duty it TO
vouch the authenticity of every check which was no.
dent in suffering himself to fall into the hands persons
who followed the pursuit Of usury, in which there
never would dispute any claim for which he really
liable Mr. Marley then denounced ia the strongest
ducng the confidential and private letters which
between the defendant and Mr. Edmond O'FIshery. He
was shocked at this departure from principle which
ought TO keep sacred such confidential COMMUNICATIONS
and at the farce of calling on Mr. A. OFAherty to pro-
dnse them under a subpoena, when at the very time
plaintiff counsel had breied copy perhaps Of ALL but
certainly OF one upon which most stress laid But,
however contrary to all the principles that ought to have
been inyionby nantaaed was the production Of those
confidential letters they showed in the ceares manner
that Mr. f. OFlaherty not the agent Of the defend
ant and that while giving to OFlaherty list Of his out
landing bills Mr. Gregory never toned the two upon
the first Of which the present action brought. Mr.
Marley concluded by stating that IN addition the
her Of witnesses long with the handwriting of
the defendant that the bis in question orgeres
crowded
adjourned to half past 10 O'Clock next morning.
sAruRpAY, June 20-This resumed at the sit
ting Of the court day, when the examination Of Wit
the part Of the defendant proceeded with
The court as on the preceding day, was crowded to
excess.
Mr. Joseph Long the chief clerk of the Dublin Money
Order Office, the first witness examined. lie deposed
that the Of the defendant to both bills the subject
matter Of the action was not to the best Of his belief
acquitted with for eriod Of fourteen fifteen years
during which lime be frequently him w1ite and
This witness ross-examned at considerable length
to test his accuracy and knowledge Of Mr.. Gregoys
bills and etters placed in envelopes, numbered
from one to six and small holes cut in the envelopes in
order to expose to view the OF the defendant The
witness stated that the signatures to almost all the docu
ments were to The best Of his belief genuine but he
expressed doubt ms to one or two of them.
sir Tho mas Burke, Lord Dunkellin, and Mr. Stewart
Maxwell "a magistrate of the county OF Armagh,
feveray produced and examined upon the subject
CORY to the f5O0 and GOO bill was written by that
gentleman, to the best Of their opinion; and Lord Dun
keiiin also depo.ed that his name both those bills
were forgeries His lordshp admitted, sexami
naon that he had been engaged in extensive bill tr ans
actions with the defendant and Mr.. Edmond O'Flaherty
but he said that the number Of bills that had passed
between them were not numerous that he could by
possibility be mistaken either to his own or Mr. Gre
gory's signature
The process of cSoss examination by the proluc-
ton OF the documents enclosed with envelopes gone
through with each witness, and they oil appeared to
think that the signatures of the defendant to the docu
ments so concealed from their view fde sigma
lures, with the exception Of two, which they
seemed to think were also genuine, but still they
pressed some doubt about them.
Mr. Gregory cthe defendant was the last witness ex-
smneo, ape upon the bills in suit being submitted TO
his Inspection he swore most positively that they
both as to his name fogeres and far he could
form an opinion, also forgecs to the e Lord
Dur kenin, whose Handwriting he thorou cly ac-
qusnted with for many years. He said that he bad bas
several bill transactions with Mr.. Edmond 0Ffahety aud
Lord DuIkellin and that Mr. oFlaherty was fe uently
in his debt The defendant likewise lie never
authorized Mr. Edmond OFlaherty 10 accept those or
for him in such a way.
The defendant cross-examined, and he positively
swore that the concealed documents tbe signatures q
which only exhibited TO HIM genuine thereby
fully corroborating the evidence Of all the witnesses
whom they were produced.
Mr. Gregory also examined to his liabilities sns
he admitted that he was indebted 10 considerable exten
ny mortgages bills OF exchange bonds promssory notes.
&c. He likewise stated that there were suits institut 1
against him and now pending upon a great number Of
other bills which he disputed ~ forgeres-so many shat
their name was legion"
The defendants case having closed,