The New York herald., 1865-05-27

United States Circuit Court.
Before Judge Nelson.
ACQuIrrAL or THE ACCUSED.

AoQUIrrAL or THs ACCUSED.
The trial OF Isaac Henderson for alleged frauds upon
the government resumed and brought 10 abrupt
conclusion yesterday morning .8y4
The defendant one of the publishers Of the Evening
Posi-, in 1893 . navy agent In discharge OF bis
Official duties devolved upon him 70 pay away con-
siderable sums Of money on governments account and
the gst Of the charge against him was that In dis
bursing these Gums be deducted percentage OF one
tsnth and put u In his pocket, sn offence whioh,
under statute renders the person committing Is
liable TO ten years. imprisonment aud to pecunary One
equal to the amount OF money audusnty sbsrsctsd
or withheld The particular instance relied upon ~ tho
| prosecution was . Transaction in oil With h D.
| Slower, OF the Slower Machine Company The
| voucher-proved 70 have been sent into the
government by Henderson forth that on the 2oh Of
August 1ssS he had paid H. D. Stover $22,2s 80 for
oil supplied 10 the navy This was, in fact the amount
Of tho bill rendered by Mr. Stover but It was alleged by
the prosecution that the amount actually paid TO him
only $2o,o4, the remaining $2,0s7 being deducted
| by Henderson, bis commission but said deduction
was not contemplated by the government It was TO-
wards this point that the proof directed, and IL
was through the failure Of the government to elicit
plee legal evidence Of this appropriation that the
| broke down. r19 I5Alsa 4ass afG
| CONTINUATION ov HENRY o. srovER's TESTIMONY
Henry D. stover, examined at length yesterday, was
again placed upon the stand On the previous day he
had stated that from his books appeared that he had
received from Henderson only $200l, though he had
signed receipt for s22 2a7 so the amount actually dis
bused by the government and the full amount Of bis
bill Either Mr. Brown, his chief bookkeeper, or himself
would have received the money. The amount actu ally
received afterwards paid into the Grocers' Bank
Mr. Gushing this morning examined the witness at
length with view OF eictng some definite infor
| nation as to this payment
Witness continued d-Sometimes Il would take three
months to get the money for goods delivered at
| the Navy Yard; when the money was supplied credi-
tors were notified to call at the oce Mr. Brown him
self would call and take receipts for the amounts Mr.
Brown managed his accounts for him. he had accounts
ut both the Continental and Grocers banks and the
books with those banks showed his business with
| The Navy Agent
Mr. Cushing continued the examination with view Of
ecng from the witness proof Of the payment to him Of
the oil bill. Technical objections raised at every
step for the defence. Tho substance Of the witness
testimony that he did not himself receive the money
and could not from recollection state the amount
Mr. Gushing put in the witness account books, and
asked him to look ut them.
Witness replied that from them the amount pal d to
him appeared to be his books he believed were
accurate.
Counsel for the prosecution wished him to base upon
those books his answer 10 the question
Counsel for defence objected.
The Court ruled that the witness could only look at
his books for the purpose Of refreshing his memory and
then IL they did not enable him to recolec without
their aid, the transaction he could give evidence
upon IT,
ties the Judge said be did need authorities He
knew what the law was and he could not alter the ruling
Of his court.
Anserl Brown, cicrk 10 the previous Witness was
called. In answer TO Mr.. Gushing he said:-I was
ployed by the Slower Machine Company In 1853 prin-
cipa bookkeeper; afterwards employed in the sum
mer Of 1858 By Mr.. Slower himself; had charge OF the
general run OF business per cent OF which
e =, OF Nayy
In August 1883 no one but Mr.. Slower and myself ut
tended TO the collection OF moneys from the Navy De-
Mr. Cushing here handed the witness the oil bnl IN
question, and asked him IL be received that amount
wnnese-I have knowledge Of that transaction
and say II received the money did enter the
amount in The cash book.
Mr. Stovcrs books were shown to the witness but the
might make must be based his personal reco!ecop
and anything be might see written In these books
| Oothing further elected
Two bank tickets in witness handwNting--one from
The Grocers and The ether from the Continental Bank
shown TO him with the result that s without
relying these written memoranda witness could not
state that he received the money that be paid Into
the bank.
Matters having thus come to dradlock-tIc witness
being able to testify anything but from his books
TO establish the desired proof In more indirect way
Isaac G. Legg,t receiving teller in the Grccers Bank
pass book and asked ,a,e II the sums here set down
we're received IT the bsnk?''
Mr. Evsrts syenuousiy objected TO The question
attempt establish Indirectly what If proved at ALL
sngIt 10 be proved directly.
The Ceu, upheld the objection
g. ~ Lock, receiving teller the Continental Eank,
placed tic stand. have tie book in which
entered credits received for the month or August 1865
Mr. Cushing-ls there any sum entered THAT day in
the nsmc OF Henderson,
Mr. Evarts-I object.
The Ceurt--Yee it is wholly irrelevant Yox must
make out case before you go into tho out.nes
M. Cushng-T propose to show tho deposit ty Hen
de'son on ha, day Of The exact balance retained by him.
namely. ten per cent on Stoyers bit
Tie Judee-But you have not reached thai point in
the Gaze at all as present.
AoossuIrAnos AND IT'S RExrLr
Connscl for he prosecution consulted eetLer for
few Minutes ~ the close of witch
Nj. Gushing said that before entering the stop
his brethren and himself desired TO be permitted
little explanation with tbe Court The question by
wbon-f by aBybody-bad this bil or any portion Of
i'm amount been received, rested with persons,
whose memories, ~ not singular with persons
engaged in mercantile trapsaciioss, did 10, enable
them 70 say which Of them actually received
| the money The question thewfsre was whether the
alternative evidence Of these persons whose testi-
uouy t.c@ded tho possibility Of any other than ,hem-
selves having received the money, competent lfne
of proof 70 be takep and secondly whether dooumeu-
Ery evidence might not be iniodved ssst rse OF
memory such tha! of which he had been speak ing
He reminded The Court that in criminal eases circuni
s,aptal evidence often psaYed conspicuous part ard
thai dcnrbcd facts ooyctaAed together established TIE
Isoof Of gust bis Honor rused the tsne OF ioqsry
be had indicated incompetent to pursue the
sci FER shc prosecution would ohcr furtber evidence
JrDGR xIaSoS's RuLlsC
The Cooyt-In my iodrcmeot and have rejected a
good deal the matter since Isl night you with
proportion thss involves nsl mpoesib,ay, and that
rs that proof of thIs payment he made up Of
psssoDs osch m tbe alternative. That Is, one person
swcam didn't he did How Is be 70 know that should
like 10 know? believe OF tbese wNbeseee-Stover-
can swear iba he DID Dot receive payment Bot the
prosecution 70 o step fnrtber spd say he bdnt
csHe h Brown did ] should Ike W know what
fcuDation stovw rect that evidence Certainly
facts coming within the wHbess's wkdge.
The same observation applrs 10 Brown. Until you
can get over that deuity you have no rpu diei aud
tbc eae Il not cstsb,lrascd.
wuBpRAwL PROSECUTION
Counsel then announced by The mouth Of Distract A.
torney Dckins that tbey would consent 10 the enter
Sng o. . xoAs prossqGi
Ms Evsrs-we entiaSed 10 . vevssct Of scquhtai
Jpdps NclsoD--l suppose so; and gentlemen Of the
jury Ibis case closed The faea upon which this
Indictment b founded and which 10 prepcribed by the
statute onebse-is that the accused oscer Of
~.