The New York herald., 1868-05-09
BROOKLYN CITY.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT Court.
The Allen and Enright Case.
Before Judge Benedict.

Before Judgo beneoiCI
me proceedings In the case OF John 3. Ailen ex-
Depuy Collector OF the Third Revenue district and
r. @. Enright, bond broker doing business in the
same, both OF whom are charged with executing
and accepting fraudulent bonds and hling the same
as security TO the government with intent to de-
fraud, was resumed this morning.
The objection to other bonds being cited than those
contained in the indictment was overruled by the
court; but the point as to more testimony being me-
cessary TO prove the fraudulent character Of the
John e. W. Hopke was called for the prosecution
and testified that he was distller In 1867 IN the
Third district; paid special tax as such; gave bond
or attempted to do so in June; didn't know who his
eureties were; never saw them employed Mr. En-
right TO draw up the papers and procure the sureties
when they signed the bond; carried on business at
Nos and IL Little street. and the firm was Snyder
Co.; dad not know whether he asked any one to get
bond for him; couldn't say who named the amount
OF $500 TO him, nor TO whom he had paid that
3mount nao never named brown ana JACKSON 10
any one before signing the bond part OF this was for
Colonel Alfred NJ Wood, Collector Second Collection
district testified that he had known X. c. Enright
between three and four years knew his handwriting;
thinks he acted as notary public and has been an
agent or broker, nling and obtaining sureties re-
quired by the Internal Revenue law; knew of William
Aayland and John Jaggard knew the latter for twelve
years (witness identified bond produced signed by
Enrght In acknowledgment as notary public, hled
IN his onice) it purpOrts 10 be the bond OF Michael
Ford, dstiler signed by Jaggard and Mayland; first
",
when my attention was called to it.; Enrght called
at my ONCE and asked me II had examined
the bonds told him had no occasion to examine
them as they were all good; Enrght then suggested
that might examine the bonds; did examine them,
and found the sureties OF Jaggard and Maryland,
whom believe to be irresponsible parties pecu
niarily; Saw Mr.. Enrght subsequently in my office
and told him regarded 1t an outrage to bring the
names OF two men to as sureties who were utterly
incompetent TO act as such; think said that his
conduct was Infamous; believing that Enright was
the man who had passed it upon Amer in my absence
Il 90
said cavaierly and said that these distiners' bonds
we're not Of much matter; they were not like
spoke OF the III conditioned dress and appearance Of
the suretles on this bond, as being inconsistent with
the assertion that they were worth $4,000, Enrght
said they could be liked up with new hats and coats
70 look like gentlemen or something to that enect
didn't understand him that he denied having pro.
cured this bond; charged him with knowing that
the bond was worthless; he did not deny knowing
Jaggard and Maryland, nor did he assert that he did
know them (witDess was here shown the bond of
Thomas z. Rogers, signed by Ferdenand LecOunt and
Thomas Lilies, and asked II he knew the handwrit.
Ing he replied that he thought Lecount was written
by Enrlght also the signature Of Thomas Llles the
body OF the bond and the AFFIDAVIT are it is nv i'm
preston, in his handwriting.
The bond Of Thomas Farrell was then handed the
witness for identification, when he gave IL as his
knowledge OF Mr. Enright's handwriting that 1t was
his.
The bond Of Richard A. Butler, signed Corlies a
C0rwn, was then shown witness, When he gave il
as his opinion that it was Enrights handwriting.
The bond Of Patrick Crossen was shown, and wit
ness believed 1t was III the handwriting or Enrlght,
and the name Of Alonzo Petet was also, the witness
iought, written by the defendant Enrght The sig.
nature Of Morris Lawrence on another bond he
thought was written by Mr. EnrighJ.
witness was crosS-eXamined at some length The
bond signed by Jaggard was in the oice about three
months before its real character was discovered.
Counsel for the defence endeavored TO show the
practice OF officers of tile Internal Revenue DEPART
ment in re yard 70 going about and ascertanng the
responsible y Of the parties whose names were taken
y snrets. District Attorney objected, and his OBJ
lection was sustained by the court. Witness could
not swear positively that the signatures OF Thomas
Rogers and +. Lecoulnt were in the handwriting
OF Enright but there was similarity between them.
John NJ Parks testified that he was unable to ind
any man doing business In Old slip by the name OF
Larowy whose name was on the bond of John
McGaw could not lind the houses he was said to
own, as the place described was vacant lot The
bond OF James Keean, having the signatures OF Wal
Yer savage and George scott as suretes, offered
witness was unable To find the property said sureties
were owners Of; couldn't find the house No. rs Wash
tngton avenue on the south side; found the avenue
running north and south, and was unable TO tell
which was the south side.
The court then adjourned till this morning.