The New York herald., 1866-06-15
THE sTRoNr. LIBEL.

L&chzue ~ tlnnoSeu-
shares, Railro ssns,. 49,. c,ots
Assembly. Sc
The Strong libel 49, -,
'"' r - occupied The attention OF the court and
P'eN' 4 various postponements motions on
49, OF tho case, at last got started in the Kings
e'.A' Supreme (Circuiu Coars yesterday, be-
.''e Judge Barnard The suit is brought by
eraas Strong cx.state Senator es-Alderman, ey-
Commissioner exchief Engineer OF the Brooklyn Fire
Department. against George c. Bennett editor and pro-
pris,or of the Brooklyn Daily Times, 'smal potao'
sheet, eking out an existence principally on corporation
pap in the Eastern District OF that CITY, The grounds
May 1865, tho following iaugrage was published m the
G0t, in letter from It's Albany correspondcnt"l do
not know that senator Strong has bs.; p..! ten or
taenty thousand dollars, but do know that such sums
we're ready TO be paid and furthermore ! know that
Senator who would try 10 brbe member Of
! the assembly, and who, an individual. has
| brioed Members OF the legislature would not be
| worry tender hearted the subject, and Dcmas
strong tha, man. let him contradict ii he dare and
viii produce the facts.n IN The defendant sets
forth that the above language is that while sir
Strong Was member Of The Senate he did receive q
Central Railroad bill; that he offered John c. Perry
$1,000 for his vote for enatcr OF the United States,
provided ancy should In that Office; that Mr.
Strong paid 10 ono Francis Fisher the sum Of $500 Tor
his vote against bill for The construction Of
through Kent avenue; that he paid TO John o'Connor
and andrew Walsh, both Members of Assembly the
county live shares each Of the capital stock Of the Ridge
wood Railroad Company, 10 influence their action on
bill affecting the said raoad that lie promised Patrick
Burns then member of Assembly, get hu the office
OF Petroleum Inspector for his vote bill in which he
was Interested
Both their best to elevate the case to
the magnitude of "a great libel suit side for poll
cal effect and alcctaon Of virtuous innocence and
on the other 10 create newspaper sensation appearance
OF protecting the public against legislative corruption.
great array Of counsel Is employed both Sides but
thus far the grounds for sensation wanting, and tho
whole thing resolve itself into local personal
quarrel interesting except the friends OF the
parties engaged III this temporary legal tilt and ourna
ment.
The trial 0. the commenced yesterday at ten
O'Clock A. N., when Mr. Williams, counsel for the do
fence moved that the defendants have the privilege of
opening the He said that this q In which
OF the allegations made IN the complaint denied
bu on the contrary had all been reairmed, and under
these circumstances he contcnded that affirmative Of
the case lay with the defendant; and with the
plainant in The case The Court took different view
The case was then opened by A. Homer A. Nelson for
the plaintiff
The first witness called by tho plaintiff was Henry
Austin who testified that he resided in the Eastern Dis
tric Brookisn knows the paries this suit he is a
paper carrier; in May 1862 the time OF the pubca
ton Of tho alleged be employed as general
clerk and reporter by George C. Bennett OF the Brook
Ign daily Times the paper circulated from live 10 eight
Of the regular issue Of May IL 1865; the Times receives
the usual exchanges as other papers throughout the
country. On his croescxamnation he said he
bored reading the article in question: it appeared in the
regular Albany correspondence of the paper and
written by Edgar Mcmillan; did hear tho matter
touching Mr. srongs character spoken Of in the commu
nifty.
General Philip s Crooke was the next witness sworn
in behalf Of The plann. He resides in Tlatbush; has
resided there for the last thirty years has known Mr.
Strong the pann, for the last twenty-six years. the
plaintiff resides in the Eastern District and Is Of
mate friend OF his for the last twenty years. and has held
Offices OF trust in rookyn when he rst got acquainted
with him he was in the notion aud fancy goods business:
paintn went TO California at the beginning OF the gold
lever excitcment when he bark he called Wit
ness; plaintiff was in California several iimcs and while
there was in the gold mining business Previous to 1850
the plaintiff admitted TO the bar, and 1860 in
partnership with the witness; he subsequently up
himself and occupied an Office in the same building with
him; Mr.. Strong was an Alderman OF the Thirteenth
ward " Brooklyn for number OF years he ws engineer
Fire Department and also STATE Senator Here the
council FOR the raintin said they would rest their
for the plaint.H.
Mr. j. T. Williams for the defence asked the Court to
rule that the paper in which The alleged beiors article
appeared is in evidence. This objected 10 by the
counsel for the plaintiff ana the point dscasscd
some length The Court finally ruled the paper form
ing part Of the testimony in tie case
sr Briggs, junior counsel for the defence then opened
the case and continued IN gthy argument celebrating
the political history Of The plaintiff in which he
charged with distinct Of corrupt legislation
concndng his argument by an averment OF general par
tlcpaon IN the publication OF the alleged libel
The frst witness called for the defence jeremiah
johnson, of Railway, y. J. He sand he acqoantcd
with tho plaintiff; have known him for q long time;
knew INN in 1868; had interest in some
Kent avenue Improvements, the subject OF which
then before the Eesislaure plaintiff was not then d
member Of The LcvislatIre witness employed plaintiff
10 80 TO Albany 10 look FOR his interests the mat
ter alluded TO and Others in which he was Interested for
which he tMr stroDg 70 receive $500; tho bl
amended 80 to meet his requirements and witness
paid Mr. Strong $500
Mr. Francis B. Fisher, member OF Assembly,
called for the defence, when he explained that Mr
Strong approached him when the matter which Mr.
johnson alluded .as baore the Committee Cities and
villages anu the amendments we're made a Mr. Strongs
suggestion
Colonel Wm g. Welsh, eN- Assistant Commissary Gene
raj sworn for the deienceWas present Tie session OF
the Legislature IN 1868; introduced to Mr. Strong
WAS not certain b. whom Ia n,rodGccd might have
been Assembiyman Fisher, brt would not be posiiive
not with him two minutes. did not give any money
that time; saw him again aud be Strongl handed HIM
check but for what amount at what bank payable
who The drawer was, or 70 whom payable. he did not
know. Witness declined 10 answer 70 whom he rave
the check He did not do anything Mr strong in re-
gard 10 putting through any then before Lessis.
ture.
Mr.. John g. Mackay was The next witness called and
after giving some unmrorant testimony. his examna-
ton suspended while the counsel discussed the relc
yancy and admissbiiy of the witness testimony pend
ing winch the court adjourned until to-day.