New-York daily tribune., 1858-04-09
THE ALLEGED FRALDS IN THE CON
TROLLER'S OFFICE.
CASE OF JAMES b. SMITH.

The oa.e Of James b. Smith aud John Fitzpatrick
charged with defrauding the city treasury OF slooOO
came UP egain before Recorder Barnard yesterda' Z
sfterooD j. r. Whiting, esq, appearing for the feo-
pie AID John Graham, esq., for the Defense
NJ Flagg had been cross-exsmned through tw
g. oeasiye previous Investigations by MIR. Graham.
The counsel for the defense having closed his exam'na
ton of Mr.. Flagg, Mr.. Whiting, at the opening OF the
case yesterday said he desired to ask Mr. Flagg only
ousstion OF two connected with Mr.. Grahams cross
M Fagg being then recalled, Mr. Whiting put to
him the following question: ,
sued 10 Fitzpatrick A. One is in the possession OF
Mr. Dykeman, but there are two Others 90 not
know in whcse possession they are.
M Whiting then addressed the witness another
question with the ayowed object TO show that the DE-
tndsnts in this complaint had committed other frauds
upon the City Treasury beside that particularly spec
fed In the affidavit of the complainant
Mr. Graham objected to any such question as rree-
want 10 the specific matter in issue, aud vinslcaed the
man pois. IN lis objection IN long and vehement
speech.
for the deferse had been permitted to go into matter in
his animation of the Witness aiming to show
the defendants in this action creditors OF the City to
an amount beyond that particularly mentioned IN the
present complaint, as the sum defrauded ne ttne
o unset for the prosecutoD had the right TO show, by
the same witness that other frauds had Deen perpe-
tated upon the city revenues by the same defendants
Independent o' the $IVVW mentioheu iu 'no present
The debate over the question aforesaid was quite
long and animated both sides, with good deal OF
peitinacious persistence, when finally the Recorder
ruled out the question and sustained the objection
raised BY the defense.
Counsel for the prosecution then called up MIR.
Charles DevliD, who was sworn and proceeded to
testify.
Commissioner of the City of New-York! A. be-
heve myself 60 to be. ~
O. Did you ever see that warrant before (Mr. Whit
Ing reaching out the warrant to the wtness)
Ob;ecte TO most vehemently by MIR. Graham. Ihis
Is stAGvery thing, said the counsel, your Honor has
tut nxess.ut -Geexpected all along just this very
spiat Of examining the witness .-;
The ReCcrder-l certainly cannot see the imprOprl-
ETY. of the question. Wha5 harm can there De IN MS
asking the witness if ne has ever seen certain p'pe
before
know precisely how that question will be followed up
Mr. whiting-I am entirely willing, here and now,
10 Indicate how it will be followed up, and take your
Huor's ruling in advance upon the whole question III
tls aggregate MIR. Whiting then proceeded to give
sn outline Of the questions be intended to put the wit
nsss, when the Recorder, inerruptng, said ne mus'
rve out tie questions.
verbatim upon your minutes all the questions con-
ten1Isted, consolidated, as read them
To Recorder assented.
warrant drawn by Controller Flagg and signed by
the Mayer and Clerk of the Common Councii, under
dats-Cf Nov. H. 1857, for s., 790 90, filled up by
Smith one Cf the parties charged, and made payable
to John Fitzpatrick, the 0tner party charged, as
assignee, came to Dcvln, the witness, either from
Puzparck or Smith, and that either Fitzpatrick IN,
doised or authorized the witness to indorse nj ana
thai he did indorse it with the name OF John Ftzpat
rick: and that he, Devlin, underneath the name of
Fiostnck indorsed, certified the signature as cor
rect and put his Hereunder; and that he, the
vyito@s Il MT. Graham nterrupting-" This Is shock
ing the whole object of the sci in this to legal
ize va ss ling of Mr. DevliD, that this defamation
may eo fcth the wings of tle press -deposlted Il
to hs 80 credit in the Broadway Bank, and that 1t
as subsequently, paid.
The Re cr6er overrued all the questions embodied
J.. re Ding, on the ground of :heir irreevaacy to
the 0asteT issue.
Nj. Whiting slso asked the Recorder to note on his
minutes the following question he put to Mr.. Flagg,
which was Objected to- and the objection sustained.
Q. lad Fitzpatrick, either on hs own account or az
assigna ct any tme contract for sewer or sewers
on FoEy- fourth street, or the assignment OF any
claims fr airy moneys due any such contract
This Qestion was also overruled by the Court
Mr.. Whiting then said the prosecution rested here'
Mr.. (r6ham then rose and moved TO dismiss tDe
conplaiu He hoped the Court would take ample
time 10 deliberate, before it decided. The counsel
conteDe Il support of his notion that there was no
evidelHs ocS confederacy between Smith and tisz.
patrics, 0tiraud as charged in the complaint, aud
therefs the charge should be dismissed. 1t should
also ss~ spi 'ed because there was nothing to Ii'
plic6ts q ick on the ground that II you strike
out oae B. legged contedsrates, the charge against
both mus, a..
Mr.. Wh'ah -epled at considerable length with his
Characteristic euphasis and energy, when Mr. Graham
was proceeding to reply, upon which the Recorder n-
terruptins said he must adjourn for the day, and
agreed o YEAR the concluding arguments at o'clock
this Afternoon.