The New York herald., 1869-01-21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT Court.
The H!aisdeli-Eckeil Whiskey Case.
Before Judge BlatchfOrd,


The HIaisdeli-Eckeil Whiskey Case.
Before Judge Batchford
The United Sates Us. Atroh Blaisden, J. j. EckeH
ana John McLdren.--The trial Of this case was re-
sumed yesterday, the court room being crowded
with witnesses and the friends OF the accused. The
prosecution rested its the previous evening,
with the exception OF few questions to be put to
one OF the witnesses.
Isaac Schuyler was then recalled and testified that
he had paid any rent to any one for the dis
tillery rad interest whatever beyond that OF an
cmploye in the premises
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENCE.
John Harlano, Deputy Internal Revenue Commits
sioner examined for the defence-- Had searched the
ONCE OF the Commissioner IN Washington for the
papers and aidayits referred to- said to have been
deposited there by the defendant Blaisden; never
knew or heard Of any such papers having been ever
George f. Langbeln testified that he had been con-
nected with Mr. Dittenhoeffers Office; was notary
public: took, the atldavits OF several persons con-
nected With Blasdell's distlery the paper he held
In ius hand was unfinished draft OF the perfected
papers; first drew the documents without the names
Oi the atlantis, because at the time IL was not known
who the parties were that would subscribe to it,
when the corrected cory was drawn up some fifteen
or twenty men signed IL and swore TO 1t.
Q. With the exception Of the grammatical correc-
uons ana the absence of the names Of the parties,
substance or the affdavit sworn to subsequently by
these peoplef A. Yes so far as 1t goes is an exact
copy
the original paper? A. Not word for word, bat / am
as to The substance; the addition made to the cor
rected copy was that the men were all w0rkmen
IN The distiiiery.
Mr. Courtney objected.
q. Have you any paper draft containing the
added matter2 A. don't know that have.
q. Are y0n able TO state from your memory what
,ns the aok caanoS sSy in
Q. What became Of the original papers? A. All
the original papers and afiidavlts took In the
securely together; tins I did myself; think then
handed them to MIR. Dittenhoeter, who was to have
gone to Washington with the papers for the pur-
pose OF applying for the release or the properly Il
recollect that after that the papers remained oh
Washington; finally he went and TOOK them with
him, and that Is all that remember about these
O. Can you remember any Of the parties that signed
say that can cali them TO Iand; recouect the name
was there, ana think Kerr was there; It was mot.
ley crew; the oice filed that morning with these
men; remember all the circumstances, but cannot
John N1nen, recalled for the defence.
by MT kn2x-po % you remember RENE being at Often, en-
seizure Of the distleryY. A. Was there once with
number q people from the disiery; signed paper
q. Was an oatn administered TO You on that
stony A. Something OF the kind came up but did
Q. Did the paper signed BY you on that occasion
contain this statement
MI courtney ou]ec'eu 1o thf reaumg VI any al
Ihe Coart-Counsel must lay the foundation for
sSe S mem ~ s a. was
papers went 20 washington and cannot be procured
Mr. Knox did not think that there was any ques
tion to the existence of the afidayits; that was
admitted they had gone 10 Washington ana deposited
In the Office Of the Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
and W ere handed to Deputy Commissioner Harland.
The C0urt-N rs only proved that some papers
were taken to Washington, but there Is evidence
that there was paper among them signed hy the
Alter brief discussion on this point the defendant
Alvah Baisdell was again called to the witness
stand and examined
q. Was one OF the papers in the bundle taken by
you to Washington paper signed by the last wit
Mr.. Courtney objected 10 allowing the defendant TO
swear to the merits OF the case on cross cxsmnA-
Mr. KBox-The question does not lead TO thar. II
the District Attorney desired he could direct the
Mr.. Courtney don't want the jury to Withdraw
The Court ordered the examination TO proceed.
Washington. was there an artdavit signed py q
numbeEof persons, among them John Nuneur A.
.. Did you read the afndavit you took TO wash
ingtons A. Yes, and heard it rcau before II was
q. That anidavit was taken before Mr.. Langbeins
o, Can you state whether or not the paper is
copy OF that afndavit so far AZ 1t goess
MIR. Couptney-I object.
Tue Court--Ihe question has been ruled out.
witness TO inform the Court that The paper lost
but he Is not competent witness 70 prove the con-
The court--Yes, the question is rued out
Mr.. KD0x-I propose 20 prove that there was but
one paper 10 ose and that tnis particular paper was
tue court-Thnt won't do; 90 on with another
q. Where did you get the papers You took TO
Wastfhgtons
Mr.. Courtney--f object.
Mr. Klox-on what grounds
n. fQsfrtnry--[t
The Court think that u competent.
Witness (defendant-i got them from the oiice OF
q. Who hairied them 10 your A. / am not posi-
tive az TO that; saw the papers good many TINES;
Tho iatention OF taxing them TO Washington.
y 2. are yon positive that the bundle Of papers that
Dlttenhoefcr had were the papers that you took 30
Washington A. Yes, know they were: ryE
them many time; read tb.- tb-. -, yvusnllTfon.
W. 7- r-r crr rruposN your ~ aonor 70 repsa.
esn wn a iesnes o h 70 Re SIp wef's ~ s
original that tfls paper with the exception Of the
names, II d true copyt
The C0Ltf--1he defendant cannN DC witness to
that under any circumstances.
The witness the Defendant BlasdeiD then lett the
john Nunen rcoaed--o. Did you not state TO Mr..
IangDen, IN Dittenhoener's olnce on the occasion
that you say you were there, tNt ihere was no con-
rcytson whatever between tho dlstcrr and the
rectiytng house and thai there never had been any
such connecticut a. Al tins day cannot state what
the statement was that was read. don't recoecl
solitary thing about but that " was stated that IL
was OF no consequence.
q. DO you know Mrs Mclarens A. saw her but
once TO know Der.
OILS she IN court nowS A. cant say.
Y. We're you at Mrs. McLorcn's house any day
during the week following the FIRST Of January is6sY
A. think was.
Y. Did you not on that occasion say to Mrs. Me-
Larcn that you aud other workmen had been down
tU an olice aud made afidavit with reference TO
this dstillery 70 the erect that there was no COM
nunicaton between the distllery and The fccifying
boasc and that no wnissey ran through there
A. No, sir.
q. And that you hoped 70 be soon at work again
A. No, sir
Hugh kerr recalled. by Mr.. Knox--Q. DO you
u. We're you al her house ono morning laat week
A. Yes, believe go was often there.
a. Did you not sny to Mrs. McIarcn on the last
Oceasl lon you ~ her house that unless hus.
band, the defendant McIarcn. gave You some money
you would into couri and swear your hardest
against MIN A. No, ar; never did say so.
o. uid you not use this expression 70 her. that yon
cnnId not serve God and Malnmon = that the govern.