The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-10-17
NEW YORK CITY.
The COURTS.
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS COURT.


me Urtsed States us. John d. AcHenrv.-The ex
animation In this case was resumed yesterday morn
Ang The charges against the defendant, 1t win b,
remembered, are based upon the testimony given BY
him in the case Of the United States against Com
missioner Rollins and others, In an examination
upon charges Of fraud against that oficer, and
which occupied such length OF time and attracted
% large q share OF public interest and attention
IN the circumstances Of the case have been fully re-
ported In the HERALD from time to time.
At the opening Of the court Mr. Joseph Bell
Assistant United States District Attorney, acting fol
MI. Samuel g. Courtney, appeared for the govern
nent and addressing the Court, said that 1t wa
Bis intention proceed with the charges against thu
defendant at the same time. There were two sepa
rate charges OF perjury preferred against the defend
ant and as .arge portion OF the testimony OF two
Of the witnesses would be similar and apply equally
70 either charge, suggest that the two charges be
Mr.. James J. Rogers associated with Mr. E. d.
Mccarthy, counsel for the defendant, objected. The
cases were distinct, the defendant being compelled
70 give bail IN each. Counsel and their client were
led To suppose the charges distinct that the offences
alleged to be committed were represented as having
been committed at different ana distinct times and
under entirely different circumstances, as charged
N two separate affdavits
The Commissioner said that no detrment could
accrue TO the defendant by having the cases conf
bed, the two charges being In fact one and arising
under precisely similar circumstances Counsel hav-
ing Withdrawn opposition the case was proceeded
with.
The first witness examined was Joseph Gutman,
united states COMMISSIONS, before whom the
examination was held and before whom the am
Gayits were sworn in the case against Commits
sioner Rollins and on which the present prosecu-
ton is based. Aiidavit shown.) This anidavit was
presented 10 me on Tie 29th August last by NJ Bnck-
icy, with tie request that would swear Mctenry
To 1t AMI issue warrant thereon for the apprehen
sion OF Daniel Murray and Thomas u. Smith,
including also F. A. Rollins ana Thomas Harland
commissioner and Deputy Commissioner Of Internal
Revenue, as joint conspirators against the United
States II matters OF fraud against the Internal Rev.
enue Department. swore McHenry 10 the AFFIDAVIT,
Snt declined 20 Issue warrant for the parties named
at..davlts were made, to all OF which McHenry swore
before hin IN his position as United States Commits
s.oner On these several ailidavts warrants were Is
sued for the apprehension OF the parties named
therein.
James f. Munson, stenographer was handed
manuscript copies OF the notes taken by him on the
examination before Commissioner Gutman, the tes-
sinony as given by the defendant, John D. McHenry
and as there reported was correct.
samuel n. Pike examined-Was In the rectifying
business for twenty-0ne or twenty-five years: know
Mr.. harland Deputy Commissioner OF Internal Rev.
enue knew him as Deputy Commissioner since
February, 1867.
O. Do You know where the ONCE OF Mr.. Harland
was In this city during the existence or the Metro
poliian Revenue Board2 A. / was not aware that
ne had an office In this city.
q. Were you in the building No. SO Cedar street in
December or January, 1857? A. was not. sir.
The Commissioner-Mr. Bell, state what you in
tend to prove by this witness. DO you hold the de-
" tt ltStiuUHy gwen Dy llln IN tne eXaml-
nation OF the case OF the United states AGAINST Mr.
Rollins and others, and is his testimony on that oc-
casion Included IL the warrant and made part Of
this case against him
Mr.. Beil-Yes, sir; and l also include for the pur-
pose OF this prosecution, the adavits made by him
before Commissioner Gutman.
Mr.. Bell then proceeded to read the testimony
given by Mcenry in the referred to as the same
was given in the certified copy OF the stenographer's
report, and said-i now propose to proceed with the
examination OF Mr.. Pike and nut in his testimony In
contradiction Of the sworn evidence OF McHenry.
hand anv tme n :a pa yoS see Mr. Har
time ! saw him was In February. 1851; never saw
MN since 1861 till few days ago in this building.
In tne price No, SO Cedar street, A. No sir
q. Did You hand Mr. Harland cheque, or any
paper n e s csae or any n Of
o. Did you have any bank account in January
l ssssrs ny Sias - :s 8 which ended with the
o. What was the name and style Of your firm and
how We're the cheques OF the firm sleaeaY a, -.
Samuel n. Pike y Co.; that was the name in whieu
tho cheques were usually written; VIII remark that
there were no cheeks written by the firm on the
q. Did you draw any personal cheques in that
N,cntis A. No, sir.
30. Did you lave any conversation with Mr.. Har-
Mn1 or see him anywhere or upon any occasion DUR
iny that month"; A. No, sir; as ] said before, did
not see HIM from the month OF February, 1857, till
saw HIN In tie building a lew days ago: u,..
Cross-examine1 by Mr.. Eogers-Q. Vino comprise
Che firm of Samuel y. Pike 4 COZ
Mr.. Bel objected TO the question as immaterlal to
the investigation,
, TIE OBJ ection Gyerrued.
\. IN January, 1865, the firm consisted OF George
W. Kidd AMI ; n. Pike, place OF business Fourteenth
street, with an Office az I16 Front street.
G. tad you an office or store OF any KIND con.
nected with that firm Or any individual member OF
IL In Pearl street in 1867
Objected TO by Mr. Dell as irrelevant to an issue
relating entirely to 1861
The Commisaioner-f counsel can show how he
can connect the object OF the question with the
matter u. ssCe, he Will allow the question to be put
Mr.. Hogcrs-lbe witness states that he is In
partrcfrniQ business with certain firm, and 1t may
b. possible that he has been In carrying on pri-
vate business OF his own In some other place. The
defence had right to know exactly what the VII.
street IN which he mas have had business relations
with liarani, and ins can only be ascertaned by
iniei rogatinr nun on the point.
IEe Commissioned do not see how he question
can affect the statement thai the defendant saw the
witness give Mr. Hasiand cheek IN January, dsSs,
from February 1867, till few days ago. III counsel
confines himself TO anything that has arisen from
tie direct examination the widest latitude viii be
allowed 70 nm. After the government has closed
IT. case and the defence Is entered uron will listen
20 any motion that may be made FOR the Introduction
OF the testimony.
Question Withdrawn.
o. In wha, bans does your firm keep accounts
A. The Merchants Exchange Bank.
Q. with any other bankS A. No; think we kept
an account m the Park Bank In 1861, and an account
in the Fourth National Bank, think In the same
.. YOU cay the arm OF 8. N. Pike Co. issued no
checks in the name OF the firm during January 1865?
A. Yes.
Q. DO you mean to say you transacted no business
during that month? a. Yes. Our business was
closed by the government for some four or I've
months.
q. in whose name were the deposits OF the firm
made IN the Merchants Exchange Bank In January,
1852 A. In the name OF Angelo Myers.
q. And the moneys OF the nrm drawn for the bene-
6t oil :. y. pike I Co were drawn on checks signed
by Angelo kiyers2 A. Yes, sir.
%. VA whose possession Is the check book and
cou1teroils II the checks drawn on the Merchants
Exchange bank by Angelo Myers from November,
fsG5 when the premises were seized by the govern
ment TN February, 1881 A. In my possession and
kep. in the oAlce Of s. n. Pike Co., No. 80 Pearl
street.
:. Counsel called for The production OF the check
DO H.
Ihc rommission-r said the best way 10 ascertain
whit checks were drawn by the firm would he TO
apply to the bank. Ii any checks were qrawp by 4,
N Pike Co., in January, 1868, he would aid cOufls
se al lie could In having the record OF the bank pro-
duccd IN court. Counsel had right TO impeach the
direct testimony OF the witness II he could do so.
This closed all that was important in tho cross