The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-09-26
NEW YORK CITY.
TIE COURTS.
@TTtD STATES C0mMlssloNER's COURT.
The Alleged Internal Revenue Conspiracy
Case-Further Interesting Proceedings.


ease was resumed yesterday morning. Mr.. Buckley
was present for few minutes only, and had pri-
vate conversation with Mr. Fullerton taking his leave
shortly afterwards
The cross-examination OF the witness J. d..
McHenry was resumed by Mr.. Sedgwick, and the
following are the main points OF his testimony
1fr. Loebs face partially turned towards me
room at Wizards Hotel; / waited at the Pennsyl-
wanna avenue entrance 10 the hotel until Mr.: Loeb
She day after seeing him counting the money; de-
sermine ihe capacity OF still by actual measure
nent ana general examination OF the machinery;
ascertain the fomenting capacity OF the mash tubs
by measuring their depth and diameter; tub Ten
and half feet In diameter at the bottom ana
eight and half feet in diameter as the top
and twelve and a half feet In height viii hold
S672 wine gallons; saw the fifty barrels OF whlskey
on pier No. about MONDAY; II was about the atLer
part OF December, 1861; was an inspector OF inter-
nal revenue at that time; saw some OF tiose barrels
driven TO Pikes distlliery; saw them 1ranueu LAY
paid" while on the trucks or drays; dd NOT swear
IN may AFFIDAVIT that saw them na ara anu
branded tax paid" While they were on tIe trucksi
Il ia nv Impression as lar l can remember, that
they were marked while on the way from the pier 70
the rectiiying establishments ! tH sae lay
DO not think / have any DRAFT OF that report;
i reported ID some time about the LIST OF January;
Twas In the habit Of going every morning to the
METROPOLITAN Board rooms; sometimes j saw Mr.
Harlan there anu sometimes did not; when Pike
came in that morning dld not know whether Mr..
Harlan in his Office; when wanted TO see
whether Mr. Harlan was in | generally went to look
every one in the office to look through the glass il
they wished to see whether Mr. Harlan was in or
was engaged did not 90 10 the glass at the instant
that Pike entered the room; first looked at some
letters and put them IN the box before looked
through the glass; there Was table In MIR. Harlans
once.
Q. When you first looked through the glass did
Mr. Pike have the check in his handY A. | didn't
notice it the first moment, but in very short time
afterwards saw the check passed; my impression
Is that saw him put his hand in his pocket but
q. Had the check been folded up2 A.. It was
smooth, apparently as If taken from a book; MI.
Pike held II almost still in his hand for probably
minute and half; the check might have been about
ioar ie tSd rG ~ eye' was directly IN front OF me-
we other nave good eyes; as general thing can
read writing.
Q. BY Mr.: sedgwick while moving paper slowly
IN front of the witness)Wil you be good enough to
read that2 Witness did not be able to read
u as 1t passed, and answered:-Wel the writing ON
The cneck was somewhat more plain than chat.
Mr.. Sedgwick obtained check from gentleman
present, and passed 1t slowly before the witness
cupying three or four seconds in doing so.
q What was on that check A. 1t says. "Chemi-
cal National Bank"
Q. what eseY A. didn't get chance to see that
! Q. What was the date, SIR A. didn't see thai,
Gir. ! want to see 1t "a minute or q minute and
b Q. Was IT payable TO orderY A. No. sir.
Q. Wei, what is IN Who is the makers 4. You
passed that before me IN about ten seconds; want
" before me for O minute and a hall.
Mr.. Sedgwck desired witness to take out HIS wit
AessD watch and time minute or O minute and
half and see il the check was so long in passing.
Mr.. Sedgwick timed one minute and i've seconds
py DIS own Watcn, ana Sald:-l on mean 10 say That
Nr. Pike held the check before your eyes for this
length OF timer A. think so; about that.
Nothing further OF importance was elected In the
erossexanlination or IN the brief direct which fol-
lowed.
Alexander Crop, who was in the distillery bust
ness in 1867 in Thirty nih street, in the Eighth
Collection district, was called and examined. Early
m his examination, which seemed 10 tend towards
certain acts of Mr. Thomas Smith, the collector OF
tnat district an objection was made by the defence
on the ground that the evidence was immaterial
unless IL was Intended to connect those acts with
MI Courtney said the warrant was two fold in its
aspect one charge being for conspiracy and the other
Mr.. sedgwick claimed that the warrant embraced
nothing but conspracy-a conspiracy TO detraud
u be bribed.
MI Courtney proposed to introduce this evidence
under the general head OF bribery. (Aiter consult
ing with Mr. Fullertonl-On consultation with my
associate we say that we have knowledge OF EVIL
eence now to connect this matter with Mr.: Rollins.
II understand your Honor You hold THAI this war
rant does not include case oil bribery;
commissioner Guttman-No sir; II 1t had In
Guided bribery should have required you To charge
what that bribery was.
Mr. Courtney-I think on looking at this war.
rant that your Honor is right about It, had read it
concerning bribery as an independent sentence Mr..
Gsropp Will you please stand asidef
Robert ID. Anderson, next witness, sworn by Mr..
Puerton:-Resides I'm Brooklyn; was formerly
sistant OF Third Collection district; made
seizure of property on the premises on Flushing
avenue near Kent avenue; the seizure made was Of
chemicals; the premises belonged TO Mr. Marriott;
the assessor at the time was Mr.. Welwood Mr.. Wood
running dstillery without license: made COM
plant TO the assessor, who reported the matter To
She collector and he heard the property had been
seized.
Mr.. White objected TO the course Of the examina-
ZION as the SEIZURE OF the premises In question had
nothing 10 do with the Charge VI conspiracy, the
subject OF inquiry.
Mr.. Fullerton said ne would show that one OF the
attendants charged In the indictment party TO
the fraud which led To the seizure Of the dstillery III
question and that from this seizure and the parties
charged with defrauding the government originated
the conspiracy In this case.
Mr.. sedgwick submitted that II an offence had
been committed by the parties In the case referred
20 by the witness that individual offence and
was not an offence in the manner OF conspiracy.
The same objection held good here, which was sus-
tanned In the case OF Gropp's testimony. Does the
counsel wish to show by this witness conspiracy
between any OF the parties charged In the matter OF
the seizure OF this propertyS
Mr. fuerton-The question is whether the acts
were not In consequence OF an understanding which
preceded them. II go ~ Is conspiracy, and In this
connection propose 10 show what one OF these ind
viduals did, and / am laying the foundation for
establishing this by proving the seizure OF this pro-
perry. We are advised and expect to show that one
OF the defendants will be connected with this trans
neton that OF the defendants released this pro-
perry for q consideration made to him by the owner
6f the property Ia an Illegal way. II prove this
tben submit that the person receiving the money
and the party paying II were conspraors 10 deiraud
me government.
Nj sedgwck contended that It was against all
law and practice TO 90 outside OF the indictment TO
sustain the charge OF conspiracy by taking each or
The defendants separately and charging them with an
entirely different offence with other parties unknown.
Ny position Is that We propose 10 examine INTO
specific OFFENCE which your Honor had In view when
YOU issued this warrant.
The Comnissloner-ln which one OF these parties
participated
The warrant does not say these four or one OF
shem, or others unknown conspired together:n but
these four particular. persons combined aud con-
spired together. We do not deny but you can pro-
eeed against any one OF these defendants and con.
Wet him with an offence In connection with others;
nut in that case the charge against the others must
TALL 10 the ground, else the goes on In form
less ana shapeess manner.
MI. Courtney-Wc are Informed mat we VIII nc
able 10 show that a certain day one OF these de-
PENDANTS. being public officer empowered with GER
lain authority, did. among other things, combine
with another party TO release property; that after
due seizure had been made 10y a competent offcer OF
tbs property-that Is put under seizure under pro-
weddings in court-ths property was released by
order Of one OF these defendants in consideration OF
certain nnYmrnt mndn TO him with that intent.