New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-12-20

was DER, ed from other parties that he hal go, Ii after
Re cross'-The 5000 was q separate mstter; tho
money refunded to him was Tor advances maze u e
,commnees.
| Q. At Op!yke's house did he not say he would 90
with TO Pare the book.keeper and set the exact
amolnt A. lie did. ..... =
Robert &. Hutchings sworu-EIamined by Counsel
for Defendant u have ceen pract cling attorney since
icGO am Assistant District Attorney IN 1908
was employed by the Committee Of the Board OF super
vsor on Riot CIims 10 take the testimonyi the claims
handed TO the Controller aud passed over to tho
committee; adyci tisements were male IN ing news
papers that a certnin number would be examined on
such day: at first the committee COMMENCED together
bat WAS found necessary to divide it, two SUPERVISORS
would take one claim there were five or 81 IN tho
committee; the claim Of keT,ny was numbered 2Vooi
there were about 1900 IN ALI Thomas q folds was
counsel for the city, he did not act IN sn cases; no
examined some important ones; Farley appeared
whom his claim came up; Supervisor BldHt asked
the questions and l wrote down the testimony;
Blunt conducted the examination e1clusN sy ON
the pgrt OF the city; no counsel appeared
for Farey and for the city; knew harley was
MAYOR .onn.!ny; think Blunt knew IT, this paper
Containing the testimony VI Farleyl was written oy
me-; 1t is signed by Farley he said, am t4s estie
owner Of tho csi" the committee always CURED To
party presenting the claim 70 state tnat Le vas mo
owner; Opdyke not er>lmned; John w. heen ives
also oxanued ard this IS bis testimony taken by me;
careful TO read the testimony ~ tho Witnesses
| took NOR. care with this than any other cium on
account Of its magnitude; when the claims were eI'
smined The committees employed outside Parties, III
and the committee took their recommendation anu
acted upon them; 1t not dope 10 tbs case; sup
pose Bunt knew more about guns thAa they
| did; the majority were refined; l do not
know whether this omission was BY direction
Of Blunt. the claim wss allowed. being mdorsed
90 7e0 and signed by Purdy OCT. "a, present
when it came before the oommittee do not rercmoor
whether that Of Wakeman came OF ibe same iule;
think Opdyke was present on "ekemans elaim aso
that OF Brooks the clothing man, also portion 81 tie
time on Farey's claim; think be voted On Wakemanb;
Think the Controller said the committee were present
that he he'd examined 1t snd he recommended 70 pass;
something said about deduciion-tbot every claim
had been reduced, and this ought TO be; 1
stood; after some discussion / think opjyts
stated that he told Farley TO be very particular in
making this claim out and that Il not being reduced
would reflect the Committee moe than upon
himself; that ne had great many political enemies,
though assuming IL was Indifferent n BIN still might
reflect censuTe upon the Committees do not ccOllecs
that anything was said about FGreys being Lls sonin
Law, ts whole claim was 500 062 3i think the Con.
trollcr suggested that ST. 90 should be taken or some
suggested different aInoultsi there were no particular
items figured ont: there was no computation IN iscti
Purty wrote out This allowance the outside, and
was presented the Board in tire form given in The
| BOOK shown.
Cro4s.examped Ivss NOT connected then with The Dis
trct torney Office in August 1868 nor with the hoard
OF Supervisors, except in this way; understood the
Mayor and Controller 10 be members Of TIC Commit
tee from tie fact that they sent for at toe first
meeting; tine report Of the Special Committee 20 AUDIT
the Claims oil similar, except the 1gst have no
|
ting hear tho testimony on this case than MI Blunt
| have compared tbis printed report with nv
manuscript never saw u TIL last fFidas; i'couecs
distinctly Farieys saying he was the owner am posi-
tive he used the precise words, because was pirtco
lar that the witness go siated lthouyt ropes
to be done. on account Of assignments Of clahns.
.. Was il not because you saw tue legal owner or
representative OF the claim should appear 80 thct when
the claim paid and the release obtained al parties
would be bound BY IT. A. That was me oojo1t; 1her:
Fecoect any this particular stage Of tie exsnn ition
put down the answers in the language OF the witness
say whether no answered yes in this instances
| he exhibited some documents, cannot say whether
more than one something was exhibited IN connection
with person by the name OF Marston thDsi n pnr'
chase from him believe: cannot recoloct specin
cally any other paper; whether II IN the minutes
cannot rccOllect ~,
O. Had you not seen in the papers at the time thai
opdyke called the owner Of the factorys p. had
seen that; knew also where lived that 1t called
his aruory; think the Committee had been 10 session
from five ninutes TO On hour when Opdyke came mi
| thew might have examined other clsIus;. 10 not
ecollect any berg stnted for sending for hin
do not know whether he came whom he was sent for
at the first meeting, do not know what Assembling
Of guns means; | would turn 10 Blnnt aud ash bin
| I" Is this testimony would teH him when he was
going too fast; understood his manner very well.
| O. Does this entry mean that the charge IL s22 81
or that the wOrkmen were paid At that A. can't
tell; there Is nothing 10 enable me 10 say what TIE
meaning IT, except it Ia here. j do not kos why
the Appraiser did not mike an examination OF tals
claim; l should say that Mr.. Blunt vas gun MAKER
and supposed to know more about guns than ihs
ADDralSpr:
premises and what special injury had been done:
! they did that in Mr. Wasemsn's case.
| q. Do Won think Mr.. Opdyke voted on Mr.. Wake
man clamf A. That is nv impression; don't recol
lect what day that claim was passed upon think The
Comptroller voted; he opposed TO certain items in
the CLAIM my Impression 10 that when The discussion
of this gun claim up. sir Opdyke was sent tor;
| Mr.. Blunt said be satisfied with the cinlm do
not think there formal vote taken until the
motion upon the amount, which 10 audited there's do
not think Mr.. OpdyLe was there when the vote was
taken; think he left very after the suggestion
have mentioned have recollection OF lis stating
had an interest in the claim; don't recceet That be
! said why lie withdrew; my opinion was that ne dld
not desre vote H. as he was connected directly or
indirectly IN interest il, Mr. Farley being bis son In
law; M Opdyk Ike said that he had great many pOi
cal and personal enemies and that the fact OF this claim
not being reduced would reflect upon tie Committee;
don't recolect his words but my Impression is that II
was not so much himself the members OF the Commit
he thOnght would be c"nsnred rec0ilcct The claim
Of man worked in this factory, tOT toos thinf
Mr. Blunt then examined into tue particulars OF tue
destruction OF the buildings don't know how long the
investigation took OF this Far.ey claim MIR. Blunt was
occupied more than evening; We sat an hour end
huf or two hours at time my impression Is that the
meetings this claim were not consecutive.
Redirect. IL tie iule that clains should be yer
fed by tue wner. except where panty appeared by
power Cf attorney they were examined Rs 10 owDof'
and what they pd for the property and oil about
their claim. resided In the neighb0rhoOd Of the fac
tory; can't say when first heard Of Its being called
Opdyke's ArmOry
Elijah T. Purdy. called by the defendant; was e1:
amned by Mr. Eyarts. am one OF the Supervisors o.
tbs Comfy have been since its first ors1nHation
think in sj1; remember the riot and committee VI
the Board Of Supervisors being appointed 10 efalins
into claims on communication iron tue 'ohtIoHcr.
dated August T. isG3; was that committee; on tho
Goth Oct. 1903 resigned my resignation was taken
up 26h and not accepted; was requested TO with
draw it; the last meeting at which acted was either
the one hen this claim Of Fareys was passed. the
one at which the Wakeuan Claim WIS passed; my i'm.
preston is that they both acted at the sans