New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-12-17
stset One h0r.e., costly c.f1faxs.. ..d r,n.r. Z.

street. fne homes, costly caf1fagss and general et
uavsgance-whie other statements are made of his
keeping up Q second establishment in the city the
ruth OF which, on account Of the decscy Of the IN
TER difficult TO ASCERTAIN. Huntington was married
several year. since, TO a Mss Barry Of Buffalo. He
has two children. In the midst of his reversed hi.
wife cings to him with fond devotion, and the ac-
ton she bears with remarkable hrmne.s add resolution
The aggregate amount Of the forperies whish it is
alleged be has committed Is over 600 OO0-the paper
purpotiDg mainly to be that Of Phelps, Dodge CO.,
Waldo, Barry Co, Arnold, Constable & Co, Tbs
dell, Pierson & Lake, Charles Scranton & Co, and
Others.
AT the opening Of the Court the case Of Huntin On
was called on
Mr.. Bryan inquired Of the District. Attorney which
Indictment be intended to try frst
MI Hall stated that be should try irt on t,e ndict-
ment i9f attempting to defsnd Harbeck.
MI Bryan stated that be had understood, in con.
versahon with the Dstrict-Attorney that be should
procee& first with the indictment which the
was charged with attempting to defrsud Belden.
Mr.: Hall said he had no reo,llectioa of giving any
such lnhmaon. he only recouected OF saving that he
sboud proceed to treat thee indictments one after
another which therein had been specified
MIR. Brady saw Ds reason why the prosecution should
move in the case Of Harbeck first. The history Of these
forgesies was dependent much upon the facts which
existed between the defendant and Mr.. Beien. They
bad various defenses both in Law and In fact and the
questions growing out Of either would rise more emf
nenfly In the cne of Belden.
Mr.. Hall said he had selected the case of H.rbeck
because disclosed more fully the facts in these for.
geres, while II seemed 10 promise to lees tine
than any Of the Others and appeared less likely to give
Use TO embarrassment lie therefore moved 10 the
care.
The indictment 10 the case recites that
Chals B: Huntington, late of the First Wad Of
the City Of New York in the County of New-York, on
The first day Of July 1885, felonously did falsely make
'orge and counterfeit, and and procure 10 be
falsely made forged and counterfeed, and willingly
act and assist in The false making, forging and coun
ereitirg certain promissory note for the payment Of
money m s as follows; v.
elve. Iiy,e hundred dos At The Bsni Of Commerce
No. ''~@''' Phelps. DODGE ca.
with intent to ipure and defrsud VIM. II. Hsrbeck
and other persons TO the Jurors unkn own and that
the said Charlie, B. Huntington, afterward, feloni-
ously and falsely did utter and publish a. true, with
intent to pure and defraud the said Vim. H. Harbeck
and other persons to the Jurors unknown the afore
said note and that the said Charles b. Huntington at
the time be 20 uttered and published the forged note
knew the same to be false, &c.
The impannelment of the Jury then proceeded
with. Foty-six jurors were examined before the
panel was filed, most Of the number having formed or
expressed opinions upon the guilt innocence of the
accufed.
SuIyolDcu ID the JuIy:
Charles II. Groves umbrella maker No ~ ve.-y street
Morn, NJ Samuel commission merchant No 70 Nissan street
William Holme soap Manufacturer No 100 Charles street.
Geo Lazarus boot and shoe dealer No 23l Centre street
Rob s. Newcomb dry goods dealer No 75 Third avenue
Henry Pincus, umbrella maker william street
Joseph Cristadaro, wig maker No. Aston House.
VIM kiPp liquor dealer corner of Broadway and Rsids
street.
Wm. Wood. professor of music, No SIS Broadway.
James Kn,ley sash and bad maker No. iS1 Forty frat
street.
The hour Of adjournment having arrived, the Court
adjourned TO Wednesday.