New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-09-17
THE LlTTLEJOIN LIBEL SUIT
PROCEEDINGS EN THHH CASE
Tie Eviasnce, Plsas, Charge, etc.
SUBSTANTIAL pFrEAT OF THE PLAINTIFF

.. LIANs. ~
Q. Where dOyou residei A. / reside in the CiJ
ofNew. York.
@. What is your busiaess7 A. am by profes stor
q urerchaDt, and am member of tie House oi
Re Prest n'stives of the United States.
G: You were member Of the Assembly during the
sessi IN of 1857 A. Yes, Ssr.
q. Wnen cid the session cemmeBsel A. ! think on
the day Of January, and terminated on the night OF
the l7th of April
O. DO yon know Mr Liltl,john1 A. Yes, Sir;
first knsw Linn a member of he Legislature in 1854;
L Was IN the legislature with tim mat year, and
think then made his acquaintance for sbs first tine
Q. Wefsyou . member of the Lssdslature 1T any
tia G between 1854 and l,602 A~.Yes, Nr, III 1859.
q. Dur6g ile session of 1859 were aE, bills brought
forward or parsedtu refertnee to, the Nw-fork city
r,ilroads7
Mr. SsDcw,cK objected for ri6hLiS, as We had
notiin TO do with that year.
Mr. WfLLIaHS-Nc wish to cOnneot Ar. l.lttEeJ0hn
with t. G ebt, prize At that early Iei1d.
The Court srstai the objection,
Exception for defendant,
Mr.. WILLAAS--u we cannot prove Ma. EttIsJ ohA's
connection with that e laiOn till the 4t DAY OF Jan
ia y, ie6o, suppose should net be allow ed to
Prove Is completely With the euterpIi-e at any earlier
tr or that he was elected for the very purpose of
Carrying out u a. tnterpris.
TIE COuRT-I dOubt whether this Woah be any
more admissible. -.r
Dir SEDGwIcK-The electors of bis District arc not
ON trial low. Thai u their business
O. Were any bills in reference 10 The street railroads
1860
Mr. SspGwrcK-I object TO that; If there were any,
there is competent way Of showing Il by tie
record.
Objection ove'ruled.
Exception for plaintiff
A. such bills were introduced.
O. Dy VIII IN 7 A. Trey we're several in numbers
am unable TO say who intrdueod themi Il ey were
reported from the Standing Committee the lncOipo-
ration OF Chic, and Nillsges, to the House, toe is ac-
tiUn. -.
O. Who was Chairman Of that Committee on Cti-s
ard Villages A.. Elias Pond L thiuk Of Monroe
County.
O. By whom was that COMMITTEES nrpoin'edl
Mr. SFDGwICK objected rs the matter was not s'i5-
ceptble Of proof and entirely immateria and irrele-
want.
A. Il, the Speaker Of the House Of Assembly.
Q. Who was the Speaker at that timer A. Dir. Lit
tlejohb.
o Were these bills ever considered in Committee Of
the Wholel
Objected Co as immaerial ana irrelevant Objection
A. Nv recollection on that point is not very Distinct
could refresh my memory by the Assembly Journal.
know the pracli regarded as being very sharp
ou that subject, and
Mr. SYDGwICK-Neyer mind the practice.
"A copy OF tue Assembly Journal was LANDED to the
wi ne--.
Mr.. SEDGwIcK objected to this reading froai tho
Journal.
WlT.rss-The bill mover formally considered
in the Committee OF the Whole
O. Werc you in tire House when these New. York
city luad bills passed the House Tor the fir time
A. Nv recollection IL that WAS.
o. DO yuu lecollect whether Mr.. Liti'rjohu par
ciIsed IN the deb these bills at any tue, in the
lioase A. / think he did not.
O. Were you Ia the House 1T the time these bills
rasscn over the Governor signature A. was not.
o. Were yuu in tie House at the time the West
Wssl ingion MAJ ket Bill fret passed the Home A.
Yes Sir. ..
o. did Mr.. Ltileohn participate In the debate on
tlai measure A. les Sir.
O. DO you recollect what he said in relAion TO bis
kl ov ledge Of the matter of Mr. Bronsous opinion
OF the Ta,l of & Brennan JUDI mehtsi The
~ esker of the House ptaicd, ia debate in reply 70
sone remarks had made in opposition TO the bill that
he has information from the publ Authorizes OF New
York in reference TO that BILL and that he had the au-
thorty OF the Corporation Counsel and the Controller
t,r sAS ing that q bill night aud proper, aud
onvbt To be tasred; and as To THE Judgments amount
iug % Letween $6IO,UOO and 100000 recovered by
Is,lor q BIennan, be had authority Of the CorpU-
ration Counsel for saying that they were good and
VA id Judgments
A. q eene &. Bronson.
O. Who Was Mr.. DTonsons immediate predecessor
in thar Office A. am unable 10 say whether Robert
o. Was not Mr.. Bnsteedi A. Yes, Mr.. Busted
was.
o. You said you participated IN that debate A.
Yes, sir opposed the bill iron the time Il was in
troduced until II Wac passed.
O. Did YOU make any statement in the hearing OF
Mr. lilejohn in that debate III reference 10 these
| iuagmrnts aud in reference TO 81 NJ bill.
| Mr. SEpGwICQ objected TO the question. The Court
admitted tie evidence, and the plaintiffs counsel ex
| teited.
| A. 1 stated repeatedly that the judgments were
founded ia fraud and would DO BET aside upon proper
| bearing by the Courts
o.. Nee YOU in the House when the West Wash
Il. he NPla
A. don't di,tin,il recollsct. Witness looked at the
| Journal of the Assembly, find now that WAS,
! aud voted TO sustain the Governor veto.
o. Did Mr. Liitlejohn vote on that question A.
The Sneaker was pres, nt and voted in the affirmative.
Q. Can you say whether the Speaker cane down
from the chair, or participated III any way on that
vote A. My recollection Is that reached the House
inst as the Clerk was beginning call the ROLL and
The discussion had taken place before reached the
| House.
o. You don remember that you participated in the
debate on that occasion A. No, Sir; am confident
| i did not.
| o. Were you in the House at the time the Govern.
or's Veto Message was read A. My recollection is
that the Message had been read before reached the
| House on my return from New-York, which did
about II o'clock on the 18th Of April, 1850.
| O. What was Mr.. Ettlejohn's influence In the
House NJ bc vine these tis were passed. and prior
| TO that time la reference to passing bills ~
Mr. SsDGwIcK objected to the question as mere mat
| ter Of opinion aud immateria
The Court overruled the objection, and the plaintiff
counsel excepted.
| A. considered Mr.. Littlejohn the most influential
| member Of that Assembly.
Q. S,eak of his ability to pass or reject bis-the
| bills In question: aud other bills
Mr.. SkDGwicx objected OH the ground that no man
| could speak Of Mr.. Lulejohus power. We insist
that if there is 70 be any limit 10 this investigation,
| il is high time to put down the stake.
MIR. WILLiAmsWe propose TO prove, first, that there
was corrupt legislation during the session OF 1860. We
think charge is that there corrupt legislation
and we propose 10 prove IT, We specify certain bills