New-York daily tribune., 1865-10-05
OUR CITY OFFICIALS.
v.,,bcr Tesfimony-The Prosecution
show a rather Weak Cnse-AsJ"nrn-
ment till TO-day-Mr. Brady eiaer'
IN submit the Case ms IL Now Stands
v;,heut Eurfl,ep Argument.

without Furfher argument
Tba investigation before Gov. Fonton at h
c,v Han veSt.rday was attended by much smaller
audience than upon the preceding day Messrs VII
T,m welsh and Terrence Smith were appointed at
fsch6s to the Court
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM c. KINGSLEY.
The 6rst witness called William {. Kingsley,
who tostlhcd D,, -, H., -
,sd in pubhc works since was 10 years Of age.
M Braly objected 10 what be called an attempt to
GROVE the witness prudent and honest contractor.
MIR TmOtl thought, the contrary that 10 ought 70
10 boy,a that the wiinesS-One Of the paItlcS who nod
Seen refused the street cleaning cOntracwas an able
and honest contractor, and that ho would have fulfilled
,hc contract better than the present contractors
Nv Graham said that the question before his Excel.
,en,y was whether these officials had been wlfuy cor
rnni he submitted that the whole thing should be mar
,oed down TO few issues in order TO economize time
Judge Emott said that he never heard OF ruling by
bch The prosecution should cODfne themselves so nai
rovy He submitted this testimony to his Fxcelency,
Who he understood, had decided TO receVeN. 80
Gov Fca'cn decided that the testimony sbonld be
taken and that afcrward it would DO apparent whether
il was important or not.
The examination Of the witness was iheh resumed D!
Judge EmOtt.
limit In bid for the street cleaning contract; my
,roposa was returned TO the ed OF May; think
TX bids in all were returned Nj. Brown was not pres
rnt al the MAYORS Office when the proposals were re-
tnrued; don't know whether Knapp OF DcYoe were
there or not don't know OIL the parties whose bids
,rre returned 10 them; Brown. Knapp and Dcyoe,
think had bias there at the timei had conversation
vi.h NJ. Blown on that day.
Mr. Br1dy objected to the result Of the conversation
being mentioned by witness. OPJeeuon sustained py
Gov. Een'On.
regard to the contracts L. with my associates, was
ready 10 perform the contract II it had been awarded
as; i am confident that had sufficient pecuniary 70
,ponslility 80 perform my share of the contract.
CrosseN aune--l do think il would be II sensible
contract 10 offer to sweep the streets Of New York for
Ten Yeas three times week. irrespective Of the state
of the weather; / have come IN contact with MI
Brennan In the course OF business but have no per-
sonal acquaintance with him; know MI. DeyeAh to the
same e1tcll; l don't hnOw much about Mg James
Gregory; met him yesterday for the hrst tIne KNOW
what the present charges are Gregory was introduced
10 me yestelday; L am party 10 employing counsel
10 prosecute these charges have employed Judges
Emott and Waterbury; when put in my bid, meant
10 NIL the contract II il was awarded 10 me- told
Judge Waterbury that bidding for this contracts
he knew that was q contractor; | 90 no. know that
made application for any other influence; l. with my
associates. made detailed calculation IS 10 the ex
pelse Of doing tho work rtmpatcd ~ the contract
TESTIMONY or Mr.. MCAFFEErY.
l only know Messrs. Boole and Brennan by sight. l.
put in bid Tor the STRENGTHENING contract twice IN
MAY ana June. was willing both times 10 undertake
the woik As explained in the SPECIFICATIONS.
cross cXomincdl called Mr Dcyel!n 10 get irior-
nation a5ort the contract My business has been
principally III making ana grazing siree,s. 1
never spoke TO Mr.. Boole.
TESTIMONY or C. GUIDET.
have lived in New-YoTk about l6 years; nv uncle
introduced the Belgian pavement; have been in part
nerSlip ith Mr.. Brown (tne CONTRACTOR about six
years; know BGOe and Brennan: made nv estimate
the contract. and made my bid with the other Wit
nesses 40 the work according 10 the specifications.
Crosscxamined-I never had contract for this kind
Of work but have made bids before; since from
Europe lave always resided in this oify the nature
of NV partnership with Mr.. Brown the fulfilling Of
eonlrscf.. parted with Mr.. Brown lriendiinoss.
Mr. McCafferty was recalled, and stated thai he
knew Brown Knapp a Devoe; did not know OF their
having auy bids returned 10 them.)
Mr. Gg.Get resumed the stand.
yr Graham objected 20 his answering the question
a. "a whether lie knew hessEs. knapp DeVoe as con.
Itsetors Objection moi sustained
Cross.cxsnined-kneW Mr. Knapp Street CON-
mssOaet when be gave Out proposals FOR contracts.
M Thatcher was the witness next called, and his
dnran words OF testimony were even less Important
than the foregoing.
UDon motion Of Judge Emott, th Court adjourned
TO Thursday merning at O'clock. Before tie ad]oain
meut however, NJ. Brody stated that II the case
should femaln as II now does, he would De Wiling 10
submit il % ths decision Of his ExceCncy without any
argument for the defense.
The general feeling throughout the courtroom was
that The charges against Messrs. Brennan BoOle ana
Dcvc4n would nOt be- sustained.