The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-09-12
BOARD OF AUDIT.

How City Onlcinls Are Appointed By Fer.
namdo w0od-Iiow Said Officials Arc Paid
Where the Money Goes.
The Board Of Audit met yesterday aftorsooA, - 10
Chatham street. hr Depew presiding.
The first called that Of Peter Kahn. the Sec
ond that OF A. Il Lynch, and the third that Of John
l. mon. which the only In which appear
ance was put in There was no claim aisd WITH tho
Board, and the was put or
the next that OF W. W. Lyon II was for
thirty days salary, ~ 81 day. for service in Ihs
City Inspectors Office.
Stephen A. Lees being called, tho claimant ap
peared and stated that mis- calm for 500 for copy
| ing hack minutes FOR the supreme Court
The OF William Macarthur was next called, but
the claimant pat in no appearances.
A. 7. Manages called ana stated that his
claim fr aiidaylts up for the iioard OF Ex
Gle Tie Corporation Counsel showed that ne was
ploy cd y the coansei oil the Board who had coect ed
some OF the arnoua ella med ss costs
The next claim taien uD wa that OF William HAYES,
who claimed 81 2O5 81 for serving summonses and slb
poe the Corporal Counsel at various tines
| 1860 and for which he was not pad.
Mr. Foaler exLOrpOrasion Attorney, testified that the
claimant employ ed 10 the 0tce Of the Corporation
Attorney by aim, but with his consent; Fernando
Wood had the power 10 appoint such men; FERNANDO
not Mayor at that time laughter; M. Wood made
the appon IN MS; air. Wood told INN to pay $500 10
settle suit ihis cam: MIR. Wood osderei him to
pay IT, and he did and charged TO him; did pay it
out OF the moneys Of the office, but out OF his
pocket; Mr.. Hayes not one Of his appointing MS,
but re aimed In The office By Mr. Fernando Wood.
tLaughter)
J. d. Hunt one OF the clerks OF the Office was next
called 10 the stand He tcsiiaed that the bills tor
ing sGbpIDas were for lime sent in in the OF
NcKenna, whose business It to summon ses
because he had the patronage OF the Office from Mr.
Fernando Wo,d-( aughterl-ne employed Hayes ~ his
depu y, understood that Mciienpa receiving
money for all the kubppnas that were served; he
books never withheld from Mr.. Hayes; he Q ten
asked witness influence tor him raise his
compensate no paid vt q certain annun
1t the expense Of Mr.. McKeuna, ~uh his understand
ing; 5000 year was he cbnpensad n this money aud
the amount hcCarthy, another nttacho Of the
office. paid out OF McKe mas ices; other moneys
paid other part es; witness had understand
ing with McKenna for tho payne OF these men.
Q.-Did you pay Fernando Wood any money A.
am ready to answer If tho Court 30 rules.
Mr. Depew-Ihe answer might give valuable nforma-
ton.
wnness-I woald rather answer the question II the
Court ruled that II was admissible.
Mr.. Drpew-I, has reference to this case; Mr..
Wood has no CLAIM. (lauxhter.)
On the cross examination o. this witness he testified
that Mccarthy dismissed, and thai putting ia bi
his the OCCASION Of hs dismissal Wit
cond not tell whether Mckepua received over
100 IN January, 1865. and Ss95 IN February
following, though Hayes got some Of the money,
though toe bills certified by hm oe'ug raid
McKenna: could not tel w'st proportion Mcheaaa got;
remembered paying tho money 10 other parties; did noI
about mentioning inc names; considered It un-
necessary
Mr.. Bouncy-Docs make any difference who go,
the money paid By the city when you did not yct III
Iou sci FOR claimant Certainly not, SIR Laughter
Mr. McKenna went upon the stand AID eonsraa. c,ed
statement OF tue last witness that he mad sworn tho
bills the ntary, many months passed IN sbica he
got money aud woud not, therefore. swear TO the
bills though he was ori gcd to sigu them. daughter
lusead ing $1,000 "a the bills SHOW. 10 thrce
four months he ia not beiieve he received 5000 AL
time he was there.
Mr. Hayes beng again placed on the stand contra
dced evidence VI Mr. Hunt To the eject thai he
had ordered him to deny his counsel access the
records In lho oiice.
I've Board lheu adorned until this morning.