New-York tribune., 1868-05-02

the balance Of the iudgesf A. do not remember this
haVg tkt placr; my Impression that Judge Porter
was not favorable TO having Judge BarnardS name III
| clulcd
BY Judge Porter-o Did you say that was then your
connstlf A. cannot remember having auNlseu win
! yOn about IL.
BY the Conrt-o Who told you the latter parti A.
| To Mr. ClarKNThought both Messrs BurriIand Porter
We're advised Th Ia some part o SaeSe ~,
10; believed he read over the complaint IN
mage % porrrs ioon WIe @ yIsg ed @ ' as nrn
ent; he (the wness) was not relative of Mr. Field.
To Mr.. FIcld-Iad been told that Judge Porter took
the complaint Judge to get iniunction his I'M
preston still that Judge Porter had SAID 1t was not
d so SIM sas the morning Of the 9th could not say he
said so then; there was never tune when Juuge Bar
To Mr.. Cark-iIe could lot ray that, except Dudley
Field and Mr.. Shearmau counsel knew Of all those
defendants being incded did not think that clause was
read aloud In Judge POrters do not know that Mr.
Bnr knew Of those parties 6eng believed
tn be made, to Judge Morga believed that Nr Field
ED M at Mr. a e M hOnse SeeveG ia tnat 's M ed g
had left that afternoon saying he was going to washing
To Mr.. Ffeld-He believed subsequent sut had been
brought, In which Judge Barnard ana others were de-
tending TO widen the Issues involved Mr. Field replied
that he had not wished TO widen the issues but 1t had
been brought IN. and II was his nature 10 accept cba
lenge the Court replied that his nature and he
was prepared to 20 into the inquiry as to his judicial III
BY the Court--Q Did not Mr. Field send you two
three days ago, an affidavit filed with gross abuse OF mo-
| II
perl-That is the affidavit; said would rather not
sign IT.;
To read 1t aloud but prevented amid some confusion
caused by the violent objections Of the other side lie
insisted that he had right u read it, and asked how 1t
would be supposing tho paper was fOuhd " contain
The Court don't need any Of tho praise, and
The witness stated in reply to questions by Mr. Field
that the affidavit had been him after 1t under
stood that the for the people had closed ana that
the defense would be called on 10 produce their adays
MIR Elpl III NuIIk
Barnardi A. aid not. @ How, then, did lie learn OF
Judge Barnard-He does not know. and never will in
ms world al" now dong as other people nr nave @ "ee en-
five weeks, all over the city, and now am following
| BY Mr. Feld-Q. We're you informed by George A.
osgood Of certain facts on which your complaint was
toundeli Objected TO aud ruled out @ Did you see
Judge Barnard frequently at the office OF George A. Os-
good A. believe have seen him there ON several oc
casOns This line Of testimony was objected TO- aud Mr.
Field offered to read offered prove by the wit
The Court refused to allow Mr. Field TO read his
offer lie could PROFOUND his questions and they would
| Mr.. Feld-What was the common repute in the stock
market ut me time the conpIant was sworn toI oo
Osgood the Receiver gave youi Objected TO ruled
ont Mr. Clark asked Mr. Belden II lac could produce the
bond lie referred TO- lie said that he could but could
not probably return with IL within half hour lie
then directed TO return with 1t this morning and recess
After the recess Horatio ~ OTIS the Secretary OF the
Erie Railway Company was recalled: He had not been
able to the stock ledger OF the Company; it locked
up the transfer Office and the transfer clerk In
Jersey 10 stock has been transferred since March Mr
Dven Informed him that lie would send for the transfer
clerk copy OF the letter the witness had sent 10 Mr.
Fisk after tsk had taken the two books OF certificates
was offered by Mr Clark as evidence but objected TO by
Mr. Field The objection was Overruled. aud the copy
read. 1t simply asked Fisk to say what had become
OF the books The next tine witness saw those books
in the Court from the 7th Of March TO the 9th Of
March, he Was at home at YonkerS d not know the GER
ticates being filled the certificates were, he
th0ngt IN the whiting OF the transfer clerk; hah Deen
be had shown IL Court the other day had,bsen lett on
witsss desk IN witnesses absence; dld not Know when
the date March 3, inserted IN those bonds; did not
know when the stamps were affixed or Cancelled he
had not made entry In the account books OF the Com
pany Of the issue Of the five millions OF bonds hs had
not charge of those books: did not know where the
bonds MIR. GToesbeCk had had were he knew they had
not the same bonds these 6osds he had given to the
President when signed, and he next saw thcm lying on
Of March,
Jonathan W. Dillon was recalled and testified that Mr.
Boden was the nan who left the bonds ON the secreays
table.
Cross-examined- Thought it was on the 9th Of March
Mr. Hilton was then present; did not hear Mr. Beden say
Re-dreet-Did not think Mr. Otis was in the office that
day don't rcOllect about Mr. Otis giving the books 10
Mr. Hilton; Mr. Otis might have been there that morning
Mr.. Ots recalled and said he had been at the office
o'clock that day. was not there the next day; Thought
he was there on @ednesdsy was eertan y was before
Mr.. FISK ~
| Railway Company, next recalled He had sent 10
Mr.. Hilton the transfer clerk and asked him where the
stock ledger and to send the key The witness was
Mr. Clark proposed to read the afSdayits which had
bert to dissolve the ijunctio This was objected to by
Mr. Field. similar offer from their side had before
TO read them and TO call Mi selell aud the other am
ants TO testify Mr. Field urged his objection.
The Court decided Il was proper to read the afdav'
Mr. Clark then read rhe affidavit OF Mr. schel, which
no @ to s the Of So con for
speculation had been ulac that the painhs statement
Of information ard his affidavit was wholly false that
the sole object in making him defendant was TO give
Mr.. Augustus s schell then sworn and cross-ex.
anined by Mr.. Field. He was director OF the Central
elected in November last O. Was It. at that time that
the Vanderbilt party got control Of that 7oadi Objected
TO by Mr. Clark AZ indefinite and irrelevant: Ruled out
by the Court Mr. Clark continued argue his objection
at great length after t was ru led out The witness est
Committee Of Harlem Railroad Company and Of the
Hudson River Railroad Company; was stoekhoder IN
not Know whether bir. vanierbilts Influence
b bit the eef Pfse% an s Executive m yc%e
cannot tell whether the three roads work IN concer there
are traffic arrangements between tbe there is 10 agree
ment Of division Of receipts.
This line Of testimony was objected 70 as irrelevant and
tempt Mr Field offered 10 prove that combination ex.
listed for the control Of those three roads, and effort
had been made 10 get control of the Erie.
wtness--Had owned Erie stock in November Deem
Der last wasnrver connected with pool In that stock
roads ~ bs knowledge; ho written 10 last November
at Albany 70 be ased ss proxy for the coming Enc esc
eleGtion did not use tne proxies had not heard from
Richard Sche about the election; had been 10 Albany
while the Erie bill pending but took part except
advising with Mr. Clark had no interest the bill cared
about 1t because he thought IL outrage; hc owned
other railroad property which he did nos want cons
Gated.
The Court-It was natural Mr. schel would object TO
such bill lie would object TO bill legaliziug counter
felt money.
question TO his other motive for opposing the bill
was ruled out Another, TO whether two interests
there represented and as 10 whose interest Mr.
Clark was In, objected 10 and ruled out
The COurt-You must prove the combination TO use
processes OF the court and 1t all once provo
nothing. .t ..
wtness-was President Of the Manhattan Club; had
ms brother there since the 1st OF February; had
Ennnk Wlrkfh fhnrn. lnde enn XnnderlAI nd