Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-05-04
THE CORRAL FRAUDS.
TRIAL OF IsHAM HENDERSON
SEVENTH DAY.
SEVENTH DAY


By Judge Advocate You say that Mr. lendeI-
son might have put in some mules on the 9th oil
August. and the receipt not given for them until
the succeeding day. If such thing had been
done would not the receipt have been dated back?
A. Yes sir, / think thatit would.
Odd not Burners report to Twins office
show exactly the number Of mules and the par
ticular day upon which they were received; and
was this not necessary ia order that Col. IRWIN
might make his report A. Yes sir, believe
that it did, and that it was necessary in order
that Col Irwin might make his report.
Counsel for defense: Did you not state during
your examination on the Bruner trial that you
had given to Mr. Isham Henderson Il false re-
eeipt for 81 or 1900 in the carly part OF
August 1864?
Objected 70 by the Judge Advocate, who re-
piled: No evidence as TO false receipt for
So or $1,000 has been brought out by the
prosecution. The defense must be confined IN
cross-examinationt TO the subject matter touched
in the examination in chief.
By the defense: The accused was iIapeaching
the witness, and that he had an undoubted right
to show that he had made other statements than
those he has made in court. This evidence is
entirely proper, and would most certainly. as
Greenleaf says, at least go against his cred
ibility."
The court was cleared, and the objection over
ruled.
BY the Judge Advocate: Did you not state on
the Bruner trial that mules were always reported
on the day they were received? In connection
with this. he asked that the witness be permitted
20 examine the Bruncr record, when Col. Coyle,
for the defense, objected to the record being
brought inJ The Judge Advocate then re-
marked that he objected to the question being
asked unless the record in question was brought
in. lie then replied as follows: The
Judge Advocate Obj ects to the witness answering
the question until permitted to examine the
Bruner record. In this case his statements are
committed to writing and the receipt itself being
the best evidence Of what he did say.
The court was cleared and the objection sus-
tanned
On the same question being renewed, the wit
ness said: ! could not say positively, as do not
remember.
BY defense: Did you not go on duty at the cor
rails on the 9th Of July? A. do not recollect.
Q.-Refer TO the corral book that you have in
your hands and see from your handwriting what
day you wenG on duty. A. 1t appears from this
that made an entry on the eth Of July. There
til the nth. see now that there was an entry
made on the 9Th. | might have been there day
or two before | made entry.
Q.-When did you first make entries? A. On
| the 9Th of July worked for Mr.. Bruner on for
mer occasions.
o. believe that you stated on yesterday that
/ you had a mark by which you could tell the
| fraudulent receipts. Now state what that mark
was. a. / made no such statement.
GLOW does the corral book show that fraudu
| lent receipts were given? Explain to the Court
! A. They were given as any other receipts. o
course would not make any marks on them to
/ enable any person 10 detect them.
Q.-Is there anything in your corral books tina
will show where false receipts were given? If 50
where A. No, sir, there are none.
By Judge Advocate: State as near a. you can
when Mr. Henderson asked you to give him falls,
receipts2 A. l can't say, but think that twa
about the time that went to the corrals in The
fall of 1864.
Q.-Had you not been on duty at the corral il
1868? A. Yes sir.
BY defense Did you not sign fraudulent receipt
in 1852 Objected to by Judge Advocate. on tn
ground that no such matter had been touche,
| upon in the examination in chief. Col. Coyle
replied: The witness has said that lsham Hen
derson proposed the matter TO him; and thi
morning he has said that the proposition was mad
in July, 1861 We have clearly a a right to sho'
that he did this before he spoke to Mr.. Henderson
Objection was made by the Judge Advocate
which. on the court being cleared, was sustained
BY defense Did you not make propositions t
II. c. Middleton. Of kentucky, to swindle tn
Government? Objected to by the Judge Adyo
cate on the same ground that the preceding on
was objected 10, and on the court being cleared
was sustained.
By defense: To whom did you first tell this stor
about Mr., Henderson? Objected to by the Judg
Advocate, Oh the ground that the witness coul
not be required to disclose the means by which tn
crime was discovered.
BY the defense: The accuced replies that tn
reference made to the law in question in regard
public policy" does not apply to the interrogi
ton made.
The Court was cleared and the objection WI
sustained.
By the defense: Did you give your evidence f
the prosecution under any threats or promises? !
Yes, sir, | believe that did.
Q-What were those promises or threats, an
how made?
Objected to b. the Judge Advocate on the san
, grounds as beforc-on the question of publ
policy"
r By the defense: The accused insists on the que
, ton for the reason that evidence given und
threats or promises goes to his (witncss) credbi
ity. The Court must hear what those threats al
promises arc, and judge how far it may effect
{ evidence.
The Court was cleared and the objection So
tanned.
BY the defense: The accused asks that the wi
7, ness here produce a paper granting him pard
for past oaenses.
The Judge Advocate replied that there was II
the least shadow of evidence that the witness hi
such Il paper, also ION the ground of pub
policy"
BY the defense: The accused insists the Que
ton, and states further that he intends to pro
that the promises were fraudulent aud goes to {
:, credibility of the witness.
:, Objected to by the Judge Advocate.
The Court being cleared the objection was 81
tanned.
. By the defense: The accused here states III
sometime when Hogc passing through Lou
=" VILE. when first arrested said loge wrote hin
" letter threatening TO mplicatc him in frauds
Nashville because he had not gone his ulog'
bail for 5000 The accused further states Il
ID such letter was destroyed; and well knowing Il
lie such charges would be groundloss and think
'e that nothing would ever come out oft, did not
he tain it. lie desires to prove the contents of
letter by Hogo himself.
!; Arer few minutes recess the Court was cal
90 10 order. when the counsel for the defense 81
IA that the accused understands that there is CO
= Of this letter in the hands Of the Government q
asks that it be given him.
-, The Judge Advocate replied that copy of 81
In letter was in his hands a few days since, but
not have il at prcscnt-that it was misplaced
!, that he would examine his Office and see ifitco
M not he found.
., BY the defense: Look at this letter aud
whether il is your handwriting OF not ? tile q
handed him the letter. A. es. sir, it is.
OF The Judge Advocate then read as follows
y RACE Course COMMERCIAL, LIVERY AND )
nc SruULE EHn. DENNG. PRorRltreR' 30;
err CHEERN ST. NASHVILLE. TENN., April 10, lS6
l., Ma HENDERSON: At the request OF brunor
Others / write 60 inform You Of David len'
est sons Dick Phillips and Ebb. Dcmiug's arr
So 10 state also that no one need be surprised II
b, rested within the next three days. expect L
" ON trial soon, and will, II treated properly, do
ur best for all my friends. l need at least ~.
ny Bruucr win give $1,000 and you s'uf give
balance Mr. Howe goes down to-day TO get
money expressed. or as much as you can rake
Your notes for any time for the balance, Wal
I ! grreptahlc. Mr. Howe can be trusted; there
IA vou can send any word by him. -
mt Respectfully, MchAN
he Q.-Was not that letter shown TO Capt W
lac -. A At. Of This Court Martial and