The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-05-10

THE COURTS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
The Alleged Whiskey Frands-Trial Of Enris
and Allan.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
The Alleged Whisky Frauds-Trial Of Enrisht
and Allen.
Before Judge Benedict.
The trial Of this case was resumed at noon to-day,
the District Attorney examining witnesses for the
prosecution.
Richard p. Eagan was recalled to the witness
stand and examined In reference to the sigma
lures attached to the bonds Of distilers. Witness
testified that Enright was q good penman and was
capable OF initiating the handwriting Of others. He
was not able to say whether the signature OF William
Brown on the bond OF Hopke was In the handwriting
of Mr. Enright.
The bond OF Thomas Farrell was then handed wit
ness and his attention called to the signature of
Thomas Rogers. Witness could not swear that Mr..
Enrght wrote 1t.
The bond OF Patrick Crossen was then handed wit
and atent called to the signature OF Alonzo
Metty To the best Of his knowledge the handwriting
The bond Of Thomas Rogers was then shown, and
the signature OF Thomas Llis, as surety, was called
attention to- Witness believed that the handwriting
LecOmpt ON the same bond, witness could not swear
was in Enright's handwriting.
The signature OF Edward Glllen on the bond OF
James Mcbride witness could not say was in En-
rights handwriting.
The name OF Morris Lawrence on the bond of Mat
thew Smith witness could not positively swear to.
The signatures Of COrwIn and Curtis on the bond OF
Richard A. Builder were exhibited, which witness be-
lieved were in the handwriting OF Enright.
On the cross examination witness said he made up
his Judgment between the bond and the form by
comparing the letters; they did not correspond with
the ordinary handwriting; the counsel then moved
that that portion Of the testimony be stricken out as
witness testified as an expert from his belief OF what
the defendant was capable OF writing and from his
knowledge Of the facts The court directed the coun-
sci to go with tie examination of the witness; 1t
was not the proper time of this motion 1,
The District Attorney inquired how witness made up
his knowledge OF the signatures, to which the answer
wer was that he made it up from his general know
wr az was disguised. The court overruied the mo-
to-. 20 strike out that portion Of the testimony.
Witness could rot say that the letters IN the words
"MOrris Lawrence" were in the handwriting OF Il. q.
Enright by comparison with the ordinary writing Of
Mr.. Enright AS to the letters forming the name OF
AlOnZO Nelly the witness gave the same answer The
signature OF Thomas Lllls on form thrty.three and
on the board were answered in the same way.
number were gone through with and with the same
response the part or the witness, who said:-"lf
paper were handed to me with letters made like
those in the signatures | should not recognize it
Mr. Enrlght'S handwriting" Witness would not
have been able to recognize the signature Morris
Laurence unless his attention had been called to it
IN the regular order OF business and after examna-
ton had never minated to Mr.. Enrght that he had
been authorized by the Distict Attorney to confer
with him on the subject OF this case.
John }. Berry testified that he resided ut No. q
Old slip; there was no such man as John LOrOway
doing business at that place merchant during
his first three years.
Joseph r. Paine, employed in the house Of A. A.
Low Brothers; had given considerable attention 10
tns subject OF dstins uisning genuine from fraudu-
lent nandWritlngS; had been special agent OF tine
treasury department.; had been called 10 examine
the handwriting of papers in the Third Collection
District; had seen Il. q. Enrght write this morning;
had had III his hands certain forms in the writing OF
IL. @. Enright with his signature notary public
attached. The District Attorney then placed several
exhibits in the hands OF the witness ana asked II ne
had seen those documents before. witness an
swered tAat he nad and found them In the sarne
handwriting as the notarial SIGNATURES he had spent
hl5 evenings for several months in examining shat
handwriting together with other writings, and
would know it Wherever he met it.
Uross-exani!ned-All my knowledge andaski pos
ses sed in the examination Of these papers Is OBJ
tanned as IN expert.
Redirect-Haye no doubt that the handwriting on
the bond Of Hopke is that Of Enrgnt; the signature
OF VIM. Brown IS In my Judgment in the same, also
that OF Jackson, on bond trty-three il is written
IN hand throughout; the signature OF Gil
len on the bond OF James Mcbride, Is in the writ
ing OF Enrlsht; that OF Edwin Fox, also; the name
OF Thomas ROgers, on the bond OF Thomas far ell Is
in the same writing; william Robinson is not.
BY Juror never saw Enrght sign his name
and acknowledge IL as bis signature
In The redirect examination witness was unable
to state with certainty that the signature Of Charles
Dupoy was writted by Enrght, but testified that the
names ON the bonds OF Butter Crossen Lawrence,
were.
During the crossexamnaton witness testified shat
lie had been sent for by the District Attorney in reia-
ton 10 this trial and that he engaged to examine
the signatures on certain alleged fogeres but he did
not remember that my PERSONS name was mention
cd in that connections he TOOK the papers home with
hin for examinations he was appointed special agent
by the government as an expert and held the COM
mission for two months; the investigation occupied
about two months OF evenings; had never detected
any forgeries on the part or Joan ). Allen. The
OF the witness as to now he became possessed OF
his knowledge with regard 10 distinguishing the
CHARACTERISTICS OF iiandwrltngs, dlsputng that he
was an expert In the matter.
Three witnesses were called by the District Attor-
ney TO prove that the names William Robinson, on
Rogers bond, and orc or two others were not the
nanes OF persons residing at the localities described
IN the BOND.
Colonel A. NJ. Wood Collector OF the Third Collec-
ton district recalled by the counsel for defence for
cross-eAaminaion, and estifed:-It was short time
after Mr.. Enrsht spoke 70 me about the bond signed
hg ord La1f Is.,aff
whether any one was present when he spoke TO Ne
about 1t IN my oilice; he may have introduced their
names at That time, but don't r. CO. ect; don't re
collect NJ that time tuat their names were ON the
bond; | was under the impression that these
names were on some bond in my office, from what
l had heard some In the Office say;
rec0ect that the first knew OF Jaggard and Malion
being suretes was when saw 1t IN one OF the news
papers; Enright may have mentioned tn .r Names
but will not swear whether he did did not, he
came into the Office with the intention OF correcting
q wrong winch ne knew OF IN my onlce that Is my
alter ts censured hm Tor what believed TO have
been his doing; think upbraded him IN presence OF
Others but am not positive: think USED IN that in
tcrvicw infamous or Outrageous conduct; when I
SAID this tank he was stan ing nc tn table oppo-
look UPON the matter in the same ht m thar a1 dS S:
recoect OF charging him AZ that interview OF
procuring II TO be done, do not recol.ect the exact
words or specific language that used; don reco-
lcct that lie ever sad that lie did not present that
bond; my understanding IL tlal he sad he fixed up
Malion: couhin't swear that he did positively say
what lie remarked about IL being possible to Tx
me up with new hat and coat; knew lie was u
revenue broker, doing business in the Office, and
fron all these acis combined gained he iniples-
SION thit &c was he who furnished the bond re-
member MS nushing when accused him with IL,
Counsel here asked was it the nush oi guilt and the
court rule, out the questou.l Had had conferences
WIN tine District Attorney on revenue CASES. when
Enright's name may have been ment onet.
Mr. Hollis counsel iQI de,ence, SAID h. offered to
show by this witness That te District Attorney had
commissioned the witness u oer immunity or all
matters and things IN the Issue cnolneu pro, led he
would give testimony IN the case OF tie United staes
against lheophilus Z. Callicott WI ness said that
was not correct.
Tire court ruled that all this irregular AMI not
material. CONVERSATIONS OF mat kiad with govern
ment oiiicers was al out Oh place.
Tue crOSScNatilnaton was then resumed, when
the witness testified that he recognized the signature
~ that Of Mr. Eniignt from characteristics of ais
writig. ~ gained nom comparisons wltl his gen
erdl nandwriiing as he found IL ON the bond and
fOrins did no. pass all the bonds taken la he Office:
proved more tnan half the number OF bonds received
there.
Mr. sanderson, counsel for defence. said he pro.
posed To snow that Notwithstanding the Inflated