New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-04-28
NEW-YORK DAILY TRIBUNE,
THE COURTS.
A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON.
HOW 1T WAS OBTAINED AND PAID FOR.

HOW 1T WAS OBIAlNkD AND PAlD EOHs
John N. EiteI agt. Abrdm Wakemdn and
John H. Latng-This suit was brought in 1885, in the
Supreme Court to $780, retained as alleged by
the defendants as counsel fees and consideration for the
release Of the plaintiff from prison. The plaintiff in 1865.
carried on business Of cother at No Futost and
at the time is said to have been engaged In the recruiting
business and 1t was further alleged that he, by blending
the two ayocations into one, made them profitable. In
the Spring OF 1865, he was arrested charge OF de-
fraudng the Government and incarceraed in the Capt.
to Prison in Washington, where he was visited, al
legged by Mr. Wakeman one Of the defendants in tins ac
ton and who II is stated procured his release from jail
receiving from him as security for his appearance II
wanted, check for $4,000 which cashed by the de-
PENDANTS and settling accounts in the month Of Au
gust OF the year. the Of $500 retained by
the defendants and the OF $500. the balance, ten
dered to the plaintiff and accepted by him under pro-
test The plaintiff seeks to recover $780, as principal
and interest in Of the Of OO paid TO the de-
PENDANTS counsel fees &C. the latter being deemed by
him sufficient for the assistance rendered him. AS many
prominent men mentioned in the proceedings, deve
Opments of public interest may be looked for The
case came yesterday before the Hon. j. b. Haskln
the referee appointed by the Court.
After statement of the facts OF the plaintiffs case by
Mr. James NJ. Smith, jr in which it stated that the
check given by Mr.. Wakeman to Mr.. Dana was not
drawn and there were no funds to meet IT, and that the
plaintiff was discharged without trial after which tne
bill In question was presented and disputed the PLAIN
CO., No Fulton-st N Y; have been in business since
Port in 1855, and With the law firm Of wakeman Lat
ting suppose he had interest In and was one OF that
firm; arrested the 18th OF February, 1865, ana
lncarceraed in the prison at Washington do not know
on what charge and can't ten asked Mr: Baker DuI
saw Mr.. Wakeman while was IN PRISON. my partner,
18th day Of March. in prison first Mr. wakeman on
coming there asked me how much was worth asked
% what d hi R Mas fGc S C or
engaged In any illegal business or false papers would
the notwithstanding Of War; Mr. Dana, Mr.. Stanton
not being IN town; he also asked me how much was
and as my WIFE S va sS coad get
he said he couldn't do H. for thar the Secretary OF WAT
have TO stay there then he came again IN the evening
Fl S day" 96 Gq M n he IG ad GET e
and had the papers for my release all ready he came
TO meet him at his rooms at o'clock at Wizards
Hotel he told me how he succeeded in getting me out
and he told Mrs Lincoln he had friend there" when
going by the Capitol Prison Mrs. Lincoln said Your
bae h here White o i the
and signed them without reading them that was the
Wnkeman IN the the evening; ho said he had
check for $1,000 Which was to give him as soon
as got home; gave him Eitel * cos check
hibt No l." dated March 90 1865 Market Bank New
York. the order OF John ~ Lel ndorsed by A. Wake
man, ordered and Endorsed Abram Wakemanl That
check was paid by my bank shortly afterward; Mr..
Wakeman SAID he gave check for $4,000 in Washington.
DstrlctAttorneys Office here by Mr.. Courtneyi paid
money TO Mr. Wakeman; never employed Wakeman
came back had TO go to the o1ce and give him the
check at the Office OF Wakeman Lattng; was never
tried, nor had any charge made against me- got $500
back again August 1865 the bill says the ith-hat
is the way remember they claimed $500 IN a for
man, and ho wanted Inc 10 sign the receipt in fu SAID
would take tho 81 800 under protest and would not sign
the check told bim the check pay able TO my Or.
der, and that was receipt enough
O. Look at that bill say II it the bill presented
by Mcssrs Wakeman Latting marked No. 2, April n,
1900 At the time receipt No. presented to you,
what conversation had you In reference TO your recey
check for $1,000 and my partners who engdged them.
would pay them II 4 was any moro than they had al
fused sign they retained just exactly 5000 alto
getheI they allowed 800 interest," ~ was IN my busl.
ness that the money Was paid; the hrm engaged them
for me.
ment took place on August or OF ne same year ths
bill presented and receipted, and took the amount
the amount OF the check was 5000 never h9d any
communication with Mr Waterman betofe saw MN ht
the prison. had communicated with Mr spencef was
told 10y Mr.. Spencer that MI Nakeihah h"a peen re,
tanned by my partners; saw Mr Nhkenhh ,hree times
In prison. confined months nothing was tald as 70
what lee ne Would TasS gr sor TO the COMPLAINT
In this action; don't know that II states that was al
rested for deiraudng the Government smith drew UP
tile complaints can't answer the question: don't want
20 say anything moro about H. 80 -, A. 49,,
Counsel drew attention TO the ffth aHegauonIl dld
not employ any Of the firm; paid my money 10 Abram
Waterman; that is what call employing him.
plaintiff; was present when Exhibit No. April q.
1850 delyeredi we went TO where Mr. Eel was
and could get 10 information; We wont 10 Lattingj
there every day at 10 O'Clock TO ma out what they
was not with him 10 the Office TO get the
$500 made this agreement IN tho presence oil nlr'
Latting and promised 10 20 10 the secretary OF war
or 10 Tho President aud have Ee released on ball. they
received note from Mr. spenceri they SAID that hr
Wees we're worth as much Mr. Spencors VIC agreed 10
pay them the 81 900 day or two AFTER, ,,. ,-,
Here plaintiffs counsel rest aud tho further hearing