The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-03-12

Int four MIXERS present; do rot know in what posi-
tcn he sood in regard to the question: cid not know
about his position until the report was pre-
scented.
Cross snred-AIderman Eames ia a very silent mem.
Der; he is rot chatting but voting member.
Charles G. Fowler, sworn am Alderman. and was
. Ct MT Committee when tcs r1attar
was pencipg Mr. Iam.s was prtsen. a. but meeting
Of ,he emmitte+; did not now Alderman Eames posi-.
ton en- this ques,t cid rot know except from the
port what bis position was while pending before the
i.tte think lad cne COL yersatlon with HIM sub
sequent to the last meeting when he inc favor Of
the ,sitcad company, without giving any reason did
not ask him to state his reasons was curious to know
his from the fact of that bsirg the only time DUR
ing the year he Rad attended meeting the committee
Ricbaro Gallagher reclll.dI never authorized .ift
to mahe any offer to Alderman Eames told him would
give Swift what received to take the members from
Williamsburg to see Atlantic avenue don't recoiect that
ssm 60 any sn to swift gave c him $50 after the
called on SWIFT he out he afterwards called on me
and paid him the money.
Goes exaninec-I gave Swift the money to take the
Ws msbulg Aldermen to The state of the avenue;
gave ii him to brbe Alderman EAmes or any other
Afternoon.
Aleermsn pard, recalied-I vas not present when
tns signed the general course was for the
cenmittee to sgree as to VIA. the should be and
then draw IL; am not sure that did not draw The
Fort never asked to sign IL.
The pI osecuti0n here rested.
No evidence ado uced en- the part OF defence.
Henry Moore, Esq, for the defence, submitted that
there was sufficient evidence TO sustain the ndict
ent, ard moved the Court to instruct the Jury to
der verdict Of not guilty.
The G. urt refused to grant the motion.
The ntel BY agreement, then submitted the case
witht ut argument
Judge s,rorg sale there had been for about two years
past Q suong mpres ion that many public officers espe-
cisy in corporations bao acted cor1upy and the ie-
eisaurs bsd act for the purpose Of preventing
ard pr nthiDg bribery The Judge then read the prov
.ioDs be statute and recaptoated the evcen He
stated that the proposal referred TO In the statute
90 coucbed in sirect terms, that . hint from which
reas de oucton could be drawn that the officer
to receive valuabls Consideration for his influence or
vote was sufficient The main question toe Jury to
consider was whether Swift either his own behalf or
AZ agent Of had made offer either expires sed
or in Piled that accused should receive any porton Of
The ncrey in question. In either the transaction
would within the provisions Of the statute. IT,
bow,v YER they thought there such
hey would arqnit him. However improper the act OF
be efer mt may have beenand the act extremely
,nprop.r--tbis would not bring 1t within the provisions
81 ibe Law His Homer concluded by inpresslng upon the
Jury the of the the u,c and TO the
ACCUSED and added that in ELL criminal cases they
nust give him the her eft Of any uby they nigh. have
The Jury irfd at o'c5ct, and not having given IN
their ytrd e. WHEN the Court ali ed bey were or
iei,G 10 present It this "wednesday morn ag.