Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-12-16
TRIAL OF j. EDWARD STACEY
Interesting ProceedIngs.
The Harris Warrant Dismissed.
Trial Resumed This Morning.
Trial Resumed This Morning.


locks on the high wines and low wine
tubs. The prosecution asked witness what
Mr.. Stacey proposed to do in consequence
of the locks not being government locks.
Question objected to objection overruled.
Witness stated that Mr.. Stacey had stated
to him (witness) that he had stopped the
distillery. II remained stopped two
or three days Witness asked Mr..
Stacey why he had stopped the
house. Stacey replied that it was
for the want of the proper govern
ment locks. A general conversation en-
sued. He asked Stacey what he must doin
the circumstances. Stacey told him he
would have to 90 to Washington and see
Commissioner Rollins. Witness stated then
that he gave Stacey $1,000 cash, and for
that Stacey gave him an order to run the
distillery. He afterwards sent him some
money. Witness stated that he gave the
afidavits to Supervisor Emery, with assur-
ances that they should not be made public,
as he desired them for private purposes
between himself and Commissioner Delano.
Sent Stacey afterward $500, which st acey
received. and the receipt of which was ac-
knowledged by Stacey. Sent the money
because Stacey was a revenue officer, and
ulu uOl hdnl INN dlOuuu NAoAAAlCIl.
Was very intimate with Stacey, who had
promised TO do all he could for him. He
gave Mr.. Stacey the $500 with the under
standing, in a previous conversation, that
if he Cwitness) should in his distillery trans
actions do anything illegal, why then he
Stacey would do all he could for him.
Stacey was afterward at the distillery.
Everything was working regularly, except
the government locks. Afterward sent
Stacey ten barrels of whiskey to Nash
vile. Stacey returned to witness half the
proceeds of this. Sent the whiskey for the
same reason that he gave him the money,
that is, he was to be unmolested in distil-
ling.
Question by prosecution as to whether
Mr.. Stacey had ever told him that for this
money he, witness, might run his distil-
lery as he pleased.
Question objected to. Objection over
ruled. Examination proceeded Witness
stated that there was an agreement be-
tween him and Stacey that for this money
he was not to be molested.
Ross-E1AAINED.
Witness was asked whether it was his in |
tention to bride a government officer? |
Answer-No. Was then asked whether he |
had given the money for the privilege of |
defrauding the government if he desired |
Witness answered that that was substan-
tally the agreement. Was asked whether |
under this a agreement he ever had defrauded |
the government? Declined to answer.
Was asked whether he was required to re-
port to the government officers every ten
days? Said he was. Was asked whether
he had made these returns Said his books
would show that he had. Was asked whether
he had in those reports sworn true or false J.?
Question objected to. Counsel for the de
Tense argued that if they could prove that
he had sworn falsely in these returns then
his evidence in the case would be invali-
dated Objection sustained. Was asked
what were the private purposes for which
Mr.. Emery wished the affidavits. Said he
did not know. Said that Mr.. Emery i'm
pressed him with the idea that in case of
his refusal to give the affidavit he could be
imprisoned. Did not remember the con
between himself and MIR. Emery
in regard to Stacey. Thought that there
was nothing said spitefully Of Stacey. Did
not know what purpose Judge Emery had in
view.
Prosecution wished to introduce Mr..
Emery. Defence objected, because the
Judge had not put been under the rule
Objection sustained and the evidence closed
)n the prosecution.
The defence introduced Col H. H.
Haines. who was asked as to the general |
character Of Mr.. Bradley. He stated that it
vas generally bad, and that he was not re-
liable on oath.
The prosecution introduced Judge
who stated that he had known
Mr. Bradley for a number of years
Intimately, and had never heard his
,haracter for veracity called in question
Would believe him on oath as quick as any
me Was asked if a man went to a court
md swore to a false statement, would he
believe him Objected to. Was
asked if a man were to decline to answer as
o whether he had made false statement.
f he would believe him on oath afterward.
that that would not disqualifv
llm.
In the absence Of material witnesses the
'ase, as regards the Bradley warrant, was
continued till 10 o'clock this morning.
The case on the Harris warrant was then
AIKEN up.
t- Z. HARRIS EXAMINED.
Witness stated that he had given Stacey
ONE time in January the sum Of $50, sub
he had given him $500 and
800.
Mr. Stacey told him that he would have
o have 500 by this present December
This amount witness did not have. The I
money was paid to Mr.. Stacey as a fee
or his going to Washington. There
vas no other understanding between him
elf and Capt Stacey. Mr.. Stacey said that
e ought to have a thousand dollars from I
he various distilleries for the trip and ex- y
.cnses to Washington. There was no 9TH
T understanding on Gods green earth be-
ween himself and NJ. Stacey than his 7
proportion of the fee for his services in
isiting Washington. Mr. Stacey q
forward stated visited GAINESVILLE,
hen nothing further concerning
be distillery was said Judge En-
" went to GAINESVILLE after witness
rought him to Nashville with assurances
hat not hair Of his head should be
urt On reaching Emery's Office he was
impressed with the idea that it was a per, !
lnql matter between the Judge and Mr. /
tacey. Emery said that he (wit-
essJ should not be damaged in
ny shape, form or manner. He
as impressed with the belief that the 7
OPPOSITION grew ont Of a rivalry between
ne two in the Supervisorship. The prose-
ntion wished to introduce Mr. Emery. a
he counsel for the defense objected OBJ
,ction sustained Mr. Harris was recalled
nd said he would believe Mr.. Bradley on
ath. The charge on the Harris warrant
as dismissed.
Al;,r7r.r,a1 fiji 10 o'clock fbig ,uprniu0 |