The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-08

ney should or should not prosecute you II you testi-
| fed IN the caseY
Mr. Courtney objected to any attempt to implicate
nn on neaIBay or on what somebody might nave
tolu witness ABOUT him (Mr. Courtney.
rn Ine Conrt-Ihe question y already ansWereu
Inc Wtness mas said that the District Attorney aue
him no promise; that he did not know the Distrlct
Attorney at the time
question 0vcrruled.
u Diu you suppose that that promise or oeclhra
ton OF Mr.. Baileys would relieve yon from the crm
mai consequences OF your own act II you testined
Objected 10. Sustained and exception taken.
Redirect by Mr.. Courtney-Q. Did You see the
spoken to about giving testimony hereS A. No.
q. Did you have any conversation with him. d.
rectly or indirectly as TO being witness In
The Court~Counsel on the other side has sought to
cast an imputation on the District Attorney as 70
he District Attorney ought to be allowed an oppor
tunity TO repel IL.
Q. State the whole conversation you had with Mr..
Bailey. A. was subpGnaed here and when I ar
rived In the city went At once to Mr. Baiieys oice
Mr. Bailey then told me he wanted my services as
witness In case between the government and Watson
Crary; told him could not very well do that mas
then said that he had already all the transactions
between Stewart and myself and Watson h Crazy;
told Mr. Bailey would nSt Object A to aye INV ev
dence, provided should not be prosecuted on It,;
Mr. Bailey then stated to me that he should do
y, ana that when the government used persons as
witnesses they seldom or never prosecuted them.
Q; Vas any other promise, In any shape or form,
made TO you beyond thatS A. No, sir
2. Was there any promise OF q pecuniary con-
sderatlon made to yous A. No sir. never. i
This closed the examination OF the witness.
JOhn i. Cleveland examined-Was Assessor OF In
ternal Revenue Sixth district; knew the firm of
Watson, crary Co, in Christopher street this city;
tney Were rectifyng distiers they applied for license
Cross-examination unimportant
George A. Andrews examined-In 1867 was book
Keeper Tor Mr.. stewart in his Christopher street
place; was acquainted with Watson, Crary Il Co.,
and knew their place OF BUSINESS which was oppo-
site Stewart's place; knew OF Nelson Stewart SELL
ing quantities OF wniskey to Watson, Crary q Co.;
stewart was the person who sold the whiskey, Mel
son being the manufacturer and the party who de-
delivered and made the entries OF the quantities at
the time or Immediately afterwards; Laade note OF
proof OF gallons; these sales Of liquor were paid for
also entered in the book the price paid for it.
This is the book to which I REFEREED it also con-
tains correct statement OF the spirits anuactured
at the distilery Of Nelson Stewart, the quantity
sold and delivered to Watson & Co., and the amounts
paid for the same; saw Nelson deliver whiskey in
lots to Watson Co early in the month OF March,
and several times during the month; Nelson always
reported TO me whenever he delivered spirits at the
rectifying place.
lots referred to by him as delivered at Watson Co
rectifying place by Nelson were spirits manulac-
tured by Nelson Stewart.
Adjourned TIL this morning
The Kentucky Bourbon Company Case.
The United States us. Daniel Aessmore and Others
Me Ke7atucky Bourbon COnapanp---At the opening OF
the court yesterday United States District Attor-
ney samuel g. Courtney ntinated TO the Court that
he was ready, whenever 1t was convenient to the
Court, to proceed with the trlal OF the Kentucky
Bourbon Company case as soon as the,trial set down
for to-day was concluded tthe Watson-C Crazy whis-
Key CASEY. Judge Blatchf0rd directed that the coun
Sci employed by the different defendants IN the B0ur
bon case be called and state for whom they were to
appear. Several counsel were present, whom the
Court informed that the case against MessmOre and
others would be taken up after the close OF the case
before the court.