The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-11-20


10 Mr. Bradyh tbs dspoxtor present his or her nm q.
oook person it, entry evidence TO us but Ia cas-
"a party cannot come We require order along Wit
the oook have examined and found that the 18th
Fsbrl Wy Margaret d. Dsal called personally, and DIRE,
this So, on book a a2l.
The CO.., ~ here took for half an hour and re
James Inn, sson- esaninsd by Mr. Cutsng-Am the Au.
di,or Of tie c. "p,roer department. order produced tc
s. II. Stuart II wss pressSted to the Comptrc ers dc
IaItment paid about tho FIRST Of July, II was
The order bears date .th Apri 1854 and directs the
payment TO James Lothro Of the $875 the quar-
,eis salary Judge stuart due the july 1855
Mitncssl paid the prevocs quarters salary To James
L'hrop or about the FIRST Of April The paper (one
produced to wi'ness left at the Comp,roers osos
by Harvey Hart, snd paid about the first OF 0ctooer
1865; bead by Mr. Cushing another order for the
quarters salary of Judge Stuart
The care for the prosecution here rested.
CASE ron TIE DrrESCE.
MT James T. Brady stated that II not the intention
81 The Counsel for the defence TO make opening 10 the
jury because, considering the of proceeding the
Hngh OF time aIendy occupied in the trial and the
material collateral matters introduced by the prosc
,y NY n@e ,s hat disposed to proions the investisl-
But hsnbmitted 10 the cost MATTER law that the
ndie'men against Judge Stuart has not boen in any
view sug'aiped by the evidence. IIo had mentioned e.
the Court at early stage these proceedings VIII 1t the
,oictmsIt was Ia It's frame; aud he thought then,
thought sti that far from the Indictment being sus
tsined as matte of law In It's theory and frame t. on
the contrary entirely disproved matter Of ias The
~ y isSd does not e aid 90 so fr aa 10 that the
be approached for tho purpose ing thing In itself
coiur', is oissef sufficient TO convic, him. md NJ ths
eiLefy statute s intended to reach persons Office the
acou cd tried merely for abuse OF his official Office
and Tor an abuse from corrupt motives This 1888
was framed to meet and only meets Of cia cor
rnpton; but there be no conyiction on an iDdic
mont for act not committed but only intended 10 be
COM nn,ina'ea and perfected Counsel challenged the
uon of man on an indictment for having perfected
an an act by proof OF an intention to perfect act
The indctment, no continued acdges that the accused
received brfbe To have noie prscgul entered la the
case Of man namsd VIM. Cosgroye. Now the prosecu-
ton have endeayored to prove. and have proved that
there was such man connected with the case OF the
of Vim. Cosgroye But he would lot thai pass Tor
tho present. BIr. Brady then read the indctment He
would not say that 1t Is skifully artiscay pre-
pared, for II s not. But H II meant ~ hing Il was
that Judge Stuart received brbs Of $500 on the cond
be eneItd and did enter noie prosui in tho case OF
indicted for offence and was necessary on
this Indictment to prove that the act
II s proved concusiyey he said that there never was
noe Jyos,q entered In the OF Mr. Cosgrsyc that
indictment L stun pending and the SECOND indctmeat
against Mr. Con oily Is absolutely nulliiy. II tho evi
cence of the principal witness could be searched
come little giimmer of truth found in It, still there would
be nothing In 1t 70 show tbata no'e prosoFd
entered by Judge Stuart in his judicial capacity But he
would submit. ani cal witnesses for the purpose OF
proving that this ouan, Connolly not entitled to
the slightest cfedi. whatever Nj Brady however a.
snned that the Court would Hot--as II might dohere
lcharge the prosecution, on the ground that Il
Nj. Cutting insisted that if Judge Of coart CT re-
cord should sgree 20 receive, should receive brbe
rupy, aud should afterwards violate his promise, hs
would still be liable TO be indicted convctcd Eu
suppoc, said he that the Law absurd rs 10 pro
vide That person should be conviscd who did not u
I'll ILLS promise and give full consideration for the bsbe
,eceved en even 10 he would insist In this that
The consideration Tor the bribe given In this
lie so c"ntenoed that there iegaiy no,e prosYu
Judge Roosevelt did not think ii necessary fr coun.e
to male an argument that point. The offence, he
said IL In the acceptance Of the money with the under
standing Whether the subsequent proceeding valid
4 moi q EN- 4 tn
M Brady agreed with Mr.. Cutting In the full lcnyh
and breadth q his argument. But he did argue tha
Judge 10 receive bible, and also makes u State prison
oheree Tor Judge TO agree TO receive brbe the
Convicted evidence Of intention receive bibs
afs s's ePS. n ec,a, . Ssass % y. y.
Mr. Cutting denied thu, any minutes ~ Mrs Connoiy,-
cyidcnec had been taken
NJ B.sdy informed Mr. Cutting that he (Mr. b hal
sppliod for and received memorandum fsom " Pail
~ Tho evidence given by Mrs. Connolly.
Nr. tuitng explained that that paper
iandum BY Mr.. Han, reducing writing his recollection
a. The evidence given by Ms. Connolly the Grand Jury
case & WAS il sIa bs ,soyp dSt Il p n < M cT
that Il counsel wished 70 examine hin what cvi
ecoce Mrs Connolly really did give be would have op
Mr. Brady (deibe rateiy ,nd resoluciy There /. MT
one solitary particle Of truth in the statement that Mr.
Hall cireciy or stiy, told me- hintsd 10 me
thsi That memorandum was anything ba, the regular |
minutes 81 e laence taken by M Hall Ia the Grand Jury
room. And he Or Bracy) thought that whore a Dis
irct Attorney privately and steathy, Ia Conjunction
with another Judge procured indictment be found
n gloom and n the dark ag,ips, fellow bfcer
not too much - gect that lie would nform counsel for
Tho Rccuset 81 the steps taken 10y him to eject the Object
y H. Han said that he told him (Nr. Brady that this
minute was mere memora andurn written from ,pemgry
ne E BAN was lsboring under very gro-s isinsl9n
hr Cutting argued A. all events, that minutes OF eyl
eenee ne, rsse e signed by the witness could not b.
ustd ir tho purpose q conycng such witness ~ peras
~ Or false swearing Even II II lad been taien ansn
ON The iTs ~ tbs witness II could not b- produced
nee - oyid'nce uhers wa not read 10 AMI subscribed
Judge Roo.eveIt il quite obvious ycu nd sr Issa8y
rot ngreirg a 70 cis, that thore nothing before the
Mr Brady-fMr Han says that thi. ndura va
rot taksn ~ the time he ~ denee g on, ALT ps0v-
~ Nr. Balls own writing that that T. not -.
Nr cutting wAs prepared 60 defend, aad would defend
he eharaeer 81 tls poor crring hc woud De
- hat ot The hghct hdy IN the land enb he would
- si,a her testimony TO be perverted aaoaei IA
teh Wy.
Ar Hall here cane into court but gr Brnly nii,sa.
I'D that hc would MT examine him 4 witness.
~ ihTes witne cailei Tor The defence
ets not answer to ther Names. Sir. Braay a,ouated
heir atenee by stating that IL hsd not been under
- ~ that The prosecution would finish ~ soon
and b. wiinssss not Therefore IN aenaace, ono
re,tsss.
Jane. Oarhe examined by Mr.. Braay-Ata he person
rtrfsd o ~ Mr.. Cutting to-day r. The cau a he
me afose 10 ny seat and oGered him pisca y paper
Grt sIoto % Jntge Stuart about days agp tort
night J never spoke with hi n before.
ks mined ~ Mr. Cutting-I was sitting akngttde ~
hn Judge STUART, aud akiug interest "a the pro-
coed ngs sm the same person mentioned haYiog
bc,n IN company with Connolly in the New York Hotel
cTHpe, Il ytu wart 10 know whether have sincs been
indicted Jon search the records (vn.ss upon be.
ng furtsr prc-sed) ~ have since been INDICTED r. -
Hilar sbeDce 4 vU called burglary dd not plcal
guilty 70 burglary; pleaded guilty H. -ouelLing and
Ieeeysd my senience on tho I'd Decsmtsr last IN The
Court q General sesssns for The city and county of ser
York.
10 Mr.. Rrsdy-I haveIbeen engsgod part of the time
tnce then IN judge kimonds ocs part * the time In
Mr.. Muhgsns once, and nov Arn,sngsged IN agency
George W. Morris tsnsmipsd BY Mr. Bfady)-Am cap
am oi police q the Testh ward; have been captain
tDce November, lh4 have been connected with n.
oee isr DeaIy eleven years. have been connected With
The Chicfs ofsce nine rear. ~ hat tune knew
Margaret Connolly since ls45 or 1sAs knew her Mar
Fafet Murphy, the pext time heard ~ her she had
sun ed The naaas Of Margaret Duvs never heard h.r
ting eaikd any other name; J never kDs- her BY the
ane q Asespsio or of Connolly.
nr. Bfsdy-wb.t 10 her general character
Mr.. Cutting objected the question. Tho question
should 10, what hr general character Tor truth and
verAeityf
Judr" Fsos@vsfThe latest sushgrity the snbisc,
ita, The qusssson l. aami,sibss in his foftn.
Mr.. CHffiug srcSuied.