New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-01-11
THE TOMBS POLICE COURT.

THE RECENT DRY GOoDs SwINDLING CAsE-CON-
rINUA-TIoN or THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATEMENT
or WIGNEss-Yesterday, AZ the Tombs before Justice
who s charged with having been implicated In the recent
frauds OF the firm OF Foyer Tlhb, came up and was
prisoner Williams. is that Of having forged the indorse
mcut OF Messr smith x Co. Of no 90 tatherlnes tos
check. drawn by Curtis Co.. for 5000 on the Central
Mr. Charles T. Bogcr paying Teller OF the bank. testt
fled that the OF Curtis Co have since refused "a
honor the check, declaring that IL was forgery; ~,
Mr.. Sampson H. smith. Of the firm OF smth * co. NO,
60 Cahauest, testified that De nau Know" t1
since August last and had had business dealings WIZ
him. prisoner opened an account WIN tnS lil W. va
d Macy, bankers, In the name Of smith " vi Mltss .n
received one check $C00 drawn on the above n By
the prisoner, and had used II Ior ,n% Hit vi Do mn
with which he (witnesslwas connect llllS
the clerks for the firm Of Sulth Co; witness dd nos
recoeet saving nat he o SS ep ar V nt Ss
cheek but the one stated had had theS5OOc heckH
his hand until the day the complaint was made
Curtis 4 Co. did not owe the firm Of smith Il Co. any
money did not lose anything by the check; witness was
urged to make the adis 10 the original complaint liz
which he swore that me lhdorseeh on the checA was
forgery by lawyernamcd smith and merchant niliec
Iewet he would not have come had they not urged nm
to Jewett came 10 the store oI witness ana stated ,as
Bull the President hank, had told hum that he
would have been arrested Jewet thenwanted &c
his signature, and witness showed II To him III three
that he was satisfied the signature on the
checks shown not those OF witness Jewett then
cautioned him Ia speak 10 any one, as ne ld not ws
him in trouble and everything would De MI rgnst
the way to Court with Jewett and Bull witness sa
he had better consult lawyer Jewett said u waS no.
necessary witness then signed the AFFIDAVIT ne at him
refused ON the ground that Williams had not lnuren NH,
and that his affidavit would stamp Williams as lons
Williams had no authority from witness 20 sg ,9 cheeks
OF smith 4 Co To the checks did not show any mn
on the bank account opened by Williams the s
500 was borrowed; the firm OF smith S,h ty tbat
Of witness aud his brother Lansing smith Knew liIlt
Williams had no authority from his brother 70 sign the
name of Smith q Co. neither was he meiIOef Oh tIe
firm of smith & Co at any time witness oeugnt goods
from Williams as salesman for the mouse OF FOlser &c
ns III nods were delivered No. % Catharne-st.:
the goods We're sold in the name Of Foger rbbs viii
ams an the Isl of October asked witness II he could
tha MA me of smith q Co. and told that he coad;
witness had not spoken 10 the prisoner since the affidavit
was made the affidavit made on the 10th Of November
was true.
the examination adjour ned until Monday next
Williams is a native OF tbs city, aged 81 years. snd by
occupation buyer and salesman In Response 70 ars
mine am not F,.ity OF forgery am the company %
the coaeerG" w. vas theD pemanded 70 the y9unA