New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-09-22
TIE Aston HOUSE LIQUOR CASE.

The Gaze Of Messrs. Coleman Stetson PROJECTORS
Of the AstOr House, for alleged violation OF the
Probbtory Liquor Law of the State, came up yestet-
d.y for Trial before Recorder Smith sitting in Special
Sessions at the Tombs.
Mr.. Coleman appeared with his counsel, Messrs.
Jonathan Miller and John l.. DevlD. Mr.. c. j. War
req, Secretary Of the Temperance Alliance, who is
complainant in the case present also, with Mr.. be
Capron, counsel for the prosecution.
Robert J. C0was upon whose affidavit the COM
plant was based was called "a wit5ess. After being
sworn be testified substantially a. follows
an % years of age, and resiee in FourtAenthst
am a CLERK with Mr.. J. B. Fountain. India goods
dealer No 653 Broadway; on the tn of Juy last
went IN the bsr-room OF the Astor House and called
for glsss of brandy the barseeper put black bot
tie containing brandy on the counter: poured some
of It's contents into glass, should think sonethins
ess than gill; i, was DARK brandy; paid shilling
for the brandy to the berkeePer which ne put Into the
drawer had no conversation with the bar-tea1er'
Cross-examined, by Mr.. Mller-l have been clerk
for the last four years; | about three wears with
Mr.. Frazer, No 2s3 Broadway since which time
have been at No. Go BrOaiwaJ, where l am now
am not in the habit of drinking intoxicating nquors:
drink it Oh at such times rs want 1t; am no
Judge Of Liquors; / bought TIE bra1oy at the Astor
House because thought they have good liquor there
Questionable you 20 10 the AstoT House by prevl
arrangement with any persOn lOr tue purpose Oh
purchasing liquor!
Mr.. Capron objected to the question, on the ground
that the fact could in wise affect the credbty Of
the Witness testimony.
Mr. Miller said II il could be shown that the witness
he'd been employed and paid 70 purchase liquor. and
thus became witness it might be shown also that 1t
was an obiec. with him TO furnish he evidence
whether he had not and in this way might seri'
ously affect the question OF the credlDuty oil the
witness
The Court in ruling upon the question, said that
there doubt but that the act OF citizen who
has been witness to he violation Of law ia entering
-. Tho y1OlQ u a
commendabls act. But the case he conceived was
different when the act prompted by motives OF a
different kindly the desire Of gain, or when the
party himself conscious that in the act which he
is performing that he allows himself TO be used for
that purpose-wbere he sells himself a cOmmoa
inforIner. From the earliest the history OF courts
shows that such men have been looked upon with
great suspicion. Il might be that in this case the
gentleman on the stand had acted from the motives
which would actuate any good citizen. Ii so, 40 Tar
from the aciIbeing disreputsoe, It wa commensurate
But il might be very different If 1t should turn out
that be acted from motives of gain, which woulc IN
duce him to 60 the act for the purpose OF getting
testimony, and where there were no CONSCIENTIOUS
motives which operated with him. TIE motives OF
witness were always 10 be taken into consideration.
Hostility Of the party no matter bow small It might
be- for in one very slight motive might produce
strong bias, while the same motive in the mind OF
another might bear no influence at ALL should be con-
sGered. There were certain rules IN relation 10 THESE
matters which had TO be applied Unfortunately to
whether he promised any reward fG his evidence,
or whether any allurements were offered him Tor hs
testimony. An affirmative answer might impair the
witness IS evidence. He thought the question put was
proper one. Mr.. Capron excepted to the ruling OF
the Court.
O. Did YOU enter the Astor House for the purpose
of getting this brandy by in consequence OF
any previous arrangement had between you anu any
person or persons whOmsoeverl A. Yes
Q. With whom did you make that arrangement to
90 there and buy brandy A. made no arrange
ments TO buy brandy; did not know what liquor L
should call for until got there.
O. Who knew YOU were TO 90 there a. Mr.. VIII
liaIns, Mr.. c. j. Warren, ana Mr.. Fountain, my en-
ployer.
Q. Was not the arrangement that you should go
there TO get drink and then make complaint against
the proprjetors of the house! A. There was no ar
ranpement of the kind made a. that time; went there
and had drink; subsequently Mr.. Warren asked me
if would make affidavit OF the TACT; said would
paid for the liquor with my own money; NOBODY mas
O. Was il not the intent and understanding between
you and the parties that YOU should go there and get
drink in order that you might be able to make an at
dnvit OF the fact
IObiected to by Mr. Capron. Objection overruled
by the Court
but did not know at the time that should be brought
M as witness; supposed the object was TO test the
Prohibitory Law; DO not recollect oil having maze
any report TO the parties they might have seen me
and ed me If had drank the AsOr House If 80,
told them yes; think the brandy was very fair the
best brandies believe are made in France
Direct examination TeSumed-Q DID understand
you say that there was an understanding between
you and anybody else before you went to the Astor
House to buy brandy A. | was to 90 to the Astor
House and get liquor but there nothing said about
brandy or about my giving testimony; Mr.; Fountain
asked me if ! would 90; said would; he did not
state at the time what the object was.
Defendants counsel here admitted the fact that de-
PENDANTS were propretors OF the Astor House.
The Judge stated that in deciding the case he should
do il after giving full credence 10 the testimony OF the
witness Coven; upon which Mr.. Capron announced
that he would call 10 further Witnesses
No witnesses were offered for the defense.
BY agreement between counsel the arguments are TO
be deliyeres 10 the Court in writing, after which the
Court will deliver its opinion.