New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-01-28
La W INTELLIGENCE
TRIAL OF JOSEPH T.. EBLINa.


The Court Room was crowded, on Saturday morning,
by office holders ard their retaincrs, who watched
every point of the rial with anxious interest thst
seemed almost personal.
Mr. Brady made no formal opening for the defence.
but preceded to eall his witnesses.
Mathew G. Fordham, swon-ln 1855 i was Street
Inspector of the Second Ward; | became acquainted
with the firm of Smith, Seckel 4 Co. about the 10th
of January; did not have charge Of the strcetsweep-
ing machines; they worked in my Ward; In my
Judgment they were total failure; made complaiat
about them 10 the Street Commissioner.
@. Did Mr.. Smith speak to you on the subject Of
your complaints
Mr. HaiI-Dont answer that question, sir. We are
here, may il please the Court, TO try the issue IL
bribery between Mr.. Ebling and Mr.. Smith, and not
vas sskea sroh yesterday, and he said he did ~
make any ofl,rto bribe this witness.
Mr.. Brady-I claim, Sir that have right 10 AK
his question: and am entitled TO answer. This b
done TO test the credbiity Of the witness Smith. Tho
reluctance manifested yesterday by Smith in giving
his evidence was mere piece OF hypocrisy, and
feeling of revenge against Mr.. Ebng in this prosscu-
tiop. anxious to tes that question Of $500 being
offered ~ this witness Mr. Smith for favorable reports
regard TO his machines. Smith was not the unwll-
ing witness he appeared to be, and tho Jury 10
understand this most distinctly. II ii should tern out
that this Smith came in artful with lot OF
street-sweeping machines, which he knew would nst
answer and endeav0red to get the authority and
patronage Of n head of Public Department in their
fay Or and when that officer ected 10 these machines
being useless, he turned round and accused thak
tficer of corruption, and attempt 10 procure q
bibe they would probably got at the exact worth u
Mr.. Smiths evidence.
DIR. Hall replied to Mr.. Brady, in opposition 10 the
admissibilIty Of the question
Mr.. Hall sustained by the Court, and the ques-
ton Over7ued.
The examination was then continued by Mr.. Brady.
WitDess--l had conversation with Mr.. Smith.
which reported to Messrr. EbliDg and Mott; the
stre nm IN raj "A
every night; the streets were cleaned In the day tme
by band labor, and they ran tho machines around By
night, TO keep up show Of work was present at tho
trial of the machines; Mr.. Mott and Mr.. Ebling were
also present; Mr.. EbliDg pronounced them failure;
lie did 80 in my bearing; be called them humbugsj ]
considered them myself.
Mr. HaI,-Msy it please your honor, must object
to the examination Of this witness upon the value az
these machines this all merely being collateral 10 tks
issuc before the Jury.
Mr.. Brady-May IL please the Court, do not wish
to take up the time OF the Court when be spared,
ard will therefore waive this question. I viii pok
another.
Q. Did Mr.. Eblng ever again authorize the employ
Inent Of the machines
Wiiness-No, Sir; but after the agreement was
made with the Mayor and Controller, the machines
were allowed further trial.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hail. did not throw any
obstacle In the way Of employing the machines; sad
tley were huD,bugs from the first day they wcrs
used but never seid 70 before they were put upos
trial.
Joseph souder called and examined by Mr.. Busteod
for the defeDscI am Street Inspector Of the Sixth
Ward; ] am acquainted with Smith, Seckel Il Co.; 1
first Mr.. Smith in Park row In March, 1885, On Q
trial Of the streetsweepng machines; Mr.. Eblng wos
present.
o. VIA, was the result Of the tIial of the machines
MIR. Hal-Ob I NUT object s2sin 10 this question.
Judge CaproI-I confe,s en- unable TO see the rele
yaby Of any Of this evidence. IL did not matter In th
trial whether the machines worked wen OF not
O. Did you have any communication with Mr.. Smith
In the month Of March relative TO the working Of the
machinesi
Mr. Ball--This gu, etion j. Ike one already passed
upon by the Couit; object again to this question.
The Court ruled against the question.
Mr. Bu-teed--Did Mr. Smith ever make you an Offer
Of per day and above what you receiving
il you would report iayoraby TO Mr.. Ebng about the
InaeblDcsl
objected to by the District Attorney. The Court
sustained the objection.
Morgan L. Mott, recaled-I FIRST saw Mr. Smith In
the latter part Of December, 1884, witnessed Tia
first examination Of the machines; Mr.. Smith never
called on Mr.. Ebling and myself with the receipt he
called on me and had conversation about tne nceH
BE- proposed 10 sell at one time; be called on Mr..
Ebing at bis Office ard called me IN this was On the
l5th Of july; Nr. smith then said be had lost greet
deal of money by tie maebDes-tha hls partners bad
tuned him out, that he must rsise some money:
lie wanted 10 know what we would give for that
rnner. Mr.. Ebliug asked If il worth anything To
ne; tod linn, not q cent; did not zee Smith in
Filings office after that be called on me after thst
Ia The nornirg Of the day, before he went before thc
Grand Jury; he said be had this paper about him. and
bad better be 60. nd Of; that The Mayo bad cent
for him. ard he cid not know what for; the nsxf Nv
Of him "a n the ants-roOm Of the Grand Jufy totd
NJ Ebipg Smith had called on me and wanted e Ct
nd Of the PspeT; Eblng lsusaed and SAD ne 90 -
ia. n.i-W.. any parer exhibited y The sae Of
Wasess-gSs paper va. as sAcvs; esss ~'ss