New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-09-14

street-wakers who were Promenadins the streets of
that ward.
The ST. NICHOLAS HOTEL DEFALcATIoy-LAwLER
DIscHARGEp-On Saturday afternoon the hearing in
this case was finished before Judge Russell at his
Office, No. 25 Chambers street. Messrs. Graham aud
Sacia appeared for Mr.. Lawler, and Mr.. Harrington
for Messrs. Treadwell & Co.
Mr. Graham stated that he had one witness whom
he wished to examine, Mr. Elias f. Balcom, for the
purpose Of testing his knowledge Of the s62 which it
was alleged Mr.. Lawler received from DR.. Marshall
and appropriated TO himself
Mr. Balloon was then sworn, and his deposition,
taken before Justice Connolly on the 18th of last
August, was read to him by Mr.. Graham. Mr.. Graham
then cross-examined him his deposition. His evil
dence was as follows
Dr. Msrshall paid his bill to Mr.. Lawler in paper
money; did not examine it to OF what denonina-
ton the bills were; my particular business was giving
out rooms have received bills from boarders at the
house on the day DIR. Marshall paid his bill there
were no bills paid to me- cannot state positively that
| did receive any bills that day. am not In the
habit Of receiving money, although occasionally re-
ceived bills when Mr.. LAWYER was away at his meah
and when his assistant was not present; believe that
tee assistants name was Willis; sometimes Mr.. Willis
got there before Mr.. LAWYER had his breakfast and
sometimes after 1t was about month previous TO
Dr. Marshas paying his bill that Mr. Willis had been
there; did not receive any bills on that DAY, but
could not swear positively that did not; did not
see what Mr.. LAWYER did with the money when DR..
Marshall paid il to him; of my own kno wledSe can
not tell what become Of the money after the Doctor
handed it to Mr. Lawler; / never examined the
drawer of the desk to see If 1t was there
Direct examination-Dr. Marshall paid the bill at
about o'clock in the morning; Mr.. Willis had not
been there then; 90 not recoect going to the money
drawer in charge of Mr. LAWYER that day have re-
ceived bills of persons leaving the house; sometimes
| handed them to Mr. Lawler, and at other times l
put them in his drawer; sometimes laid them upon
Mr.. LAWYERS desk i have cole cted money from
guests while Mr. LAWYER was present, tne o'S COZ
and a memorandum OF them made in the cash. book
in pencil mark put it in pencil mark fprthe purpose
of drawing Mr. Law eIs attention to 1t when he re.
tuned so that lie might examine the accounts aud
see that they correct; his attention was always
directed to it upon his return; would speak TO him
about it, and show him the account had settled in
his absence; he would then rule them out and make
entries of them in his own hand writing In the cash
book
O. What was done with that money
Objected TO by Mr.. Graham.
The Judge said that he could not allow counsel to
90 hey ond the two points he had previously stated
whether Mr.. Lswler took the money after Il was in
the drawer, in possession Of the proprietors, or
whether Mr.. LAWYER intercepted II.
Mr. Harrington said that the other side had put in
new matter, and he wished to examine the witness on
the same question.
The Judge said the DULY question was whether the
crime had been committed. III none Hdu DecH coul-
mitted he ust discharge Mr. Lawler.
Mr. Harrington eaid that there were facts stated in
the case which would be sufficient to throw the onus
of guilt on Mr.. Lawer. Ii was upon these facts he
had been committed, and 1t was unknown 10 the law
that City Judgehad the right to review the proceed
irgs of committing Magistrate, or that he 40 the
power to decide that such Magistrate had erred.
The Judge thought Mr.. Harrington could not have
examined the Supreme Court authorities on the sqo-
iect, or he would have never given utterance to his
last expression.
Mr.. Graham said the case of the Martin girl fully
settled that question.
Mr.. Harrington argued that ne had never ciaiteu
that the popretors Of the hotel had possession OF the
money; be had intended Ia prove that the money had
been secreted. He then proceeded on the direct OK
animation
to examining the MOI ey that had been taken by you
during his absence
Mr. Graham objected to the question on the ground
that ii did not throw any light on either OF the
offences.
The Judge sustained the objection.
Mr.. Harrington remarked that, under the ruling OF
Judge he had DO further questions to ask
The evidence of Mr.. Balloon was then read and ne
signed it.
Mr.. Harrington called Mr.. Rogers, who was then
sworn, and his direct examination by Mr.. Harrington
follows: . =,
Mrs. Hatch paid her bill very near o'clock in the
morning. could not say who was IN the once AZ ln9
time-whether the night watch or the room clerk; L
could rot soy whether Mr. Willis was present or not,
nor at what time he arrived the bill received from
Mrs. Hatch laid upon Mr.. LAWYERS deck; i was
there when left; that the last knowledge nad
Of it, Mr. LAWYER had charge OF the and the
caiLboOk the cash received from the guests Oh tue
house is entered in the cash book, and the daybook
contains the Of the guests OF the mouse
q. II you examined the cash'Dook couid you 'eh
what sums had been entered
Mr.. Graham objected to the question .
Mr.. Harrington said that he could snow oy Tue
books that a crime had been committed lhe DAY.
book would show that the receipt OF this money was
acknowledged by Mr. LAWYER, and by the ca'h'oooA
he would show that it had not been entered. ..
The Judge asked Mr.. Harrington if he wished TO
show tina, the omission TO put 1t In the oooA oos"
tut.d the crime.
Mr.. Harrington offered TO produce the books toI 'us
purpose. but the Judge overruled it, saying tina: the
books could not he introduced.
Mr.. Harm gton then sad that he was through.
Mr.. Graham moved that Mr.. LAWYER be dischafseo
from custody.
MI Harrington objected. He said that pamss
iacie case Of embe zzlement had been mace ou' M
even if il had not BEEN the evidence suslaiueu '
charge Of larceny, and therefore Mr.. La"ie' nN'' "
remanded. A.. Ill n,.
Judge Russell replied, that Mr.. Harrington haI n"'
proved that Mr.. Laxler had coinn'itteo q o,.nv.
Upon the evidence produced he coua No. s ,Sar.S,a
Indictment could be sustained. lie snouiu' '"'''''
direct Mr.. LAWYERS discharge. =. ,,.,
Mr.. (;rahsm remarked that il Mr.. Lswier Wa
waited at any time he would always I.ep poua.s,
sepdirp VOID 10 Mr. IL Sscis bis associste COUNSEL
would be sure 10 reach Mr.. Lswler. He was glad
that the Judge had permitted Mr. Lawi.r 70 80 "A"'
out the label Of thief any longer stNcneu n,
The following Is the order dlscnslgins . a,,.;n,.
The Witnesses In support Oh me ~ t.r;a1
been .xsmin.d before me, after bearing c1unsel ior
the ss,d J0hn N IAvIer and for the prosecution,