The New York herald., 1869-02-18
NEW YORK CITY
TEE C0TRTs.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
The Alleged McHeury Perjury Case.

The Alleged McHenry Perjury Case.
Before Judge BENEDICT
1ne United States rs. John d. AcHeary.The trial
Of this case was resumed yesterday, the court
room being crowded by the numerous witnesses
summoned and by the friends OF the accused.
The first witness examined was
Charles Loeb-The testimony OF the witness was
throughout emphatically contradictory oi every
sworn statement made by the defendants on The
testimony given by him In the case OF the United
States against Commissioner Rollins, and wnicn mas
already been fully reported IN the HERALD: ,,
Edward A. Rollins Commissioner OF intenai
Revenue, was the next witness, who testineu tnas
his home was in New Hampshire and his present re-
Hadence Washington city since November iSoo mas
held che once of Commissioner or Internal Reyenue;
was Elch commissioner in the month OF may, ioo5'
knew se witness LoeS mas mem IN the room Of
senator Nye, Of Nevada; MI Nye on tnat occasion
remarked tnat he had intended TO call upon me at
my once on matter Of some business; was not IN
tr0duced 70 MI Loeb at that meeting; In ABOUT nal
M hour after that interview Senator Nye ana Mr..
Loco came 70 my ONCE, and Then hr. Loeb was first
.. what transpircd between you ana MI. Loeb at
Thc Court SUSTAINED the objection, proof having
been already given on that point
Witness-The next time that saw Mr.. Loeb was
In Senator Nye's lodging and near the room occupied
by Mr.. Nye; had no conversation with him, beyond
perhaps saying good morning; did not again see Mr.
Loeb from that time till nlm at the commence
ment Of this McHenrys) trial here in tins building.
U On the 10th day Of May 1858, or on any day d1r-
Ing that month, did you meet mr.. Loeb in Washing
t0n on fifteenth street, Just outside the building
where your oflce Is located I A. did not.
Y. on the 2stn. day OF May, 1868. or on any day
YORK avenue, in the city Of Washington, and walk
IN company with HIM there A. did not ,,a
and walk with him side BY sldeT. A. did not. t
Q. Did Mr. Loco, on the 2srh May, 1888, or on any
day during that month, hand you package, while
ton A. No; he did not; he never handed me any
thing on the streets Of Washington or where else
and he never walked side BY side with me IN the
streets OF washington or elsewhere thai relnem-
Der. ft
the witness was cross-examined at great length
principally upon matters entirely irrelevant TO tue
case on trial. Nothing a1ecting his direct testimony
was eLciIed. g ,ha Sa4A M
Edward i. Wood, next witncss--ResIdes in Brook
lyn; knows the defendant. tes VI
! q. had you any conversation with him III wash
tngtOn with respect to Mi. Harard
1ir. McCarthy objected 70 tile question. Nr.t
Mr. Bcil-lne object oi the query Is TO show the
corrupt motive OF Mchenry with regard TO his
charge against Mr.. AarlaLd. asl
The CuurG oyerruied tile objection.
WItness--I had a conversation With the defendant
Ia Washington With respect 10 AZ. hafianQ IA Nay,
1868; the coDversaeon was. also u reetrd 10 Nc
helry's DISMISSAL from lns revenue service dad his
hopes Tor a reappolntinehG
( Y, What did ne say st f t2
\ Objected 10 sls lllinaterial. .ls #
= The Court win permit the question: for 1t may
probably ue put with tle inteaLol VI Proysng OK
p,essioDs OF nance OF OF threat.
Mr. Bell--rhat is the OBJECT, your Hoaor- IS
dr McCartiy pressed his Objection, ColienlIDg
nnst be proved 10 hasAexsted NJ Ghe tune ie tessi-
Incny Was given, anu not weeks or months before.
Objection ovefruici. ## tttaM fadi+F
Wilness-l told Mcaenry that ] had seen the Com
missioner and had recommended MN Tor appoint
meuL IS Reyenue Inspector, and THAI Mr. hailand
al that time nai il JWn him some papers connectcJ
with hts lMckienry's) previous conduct in the de-
partment and chat IN consequences OF this record nc
had withdrawn his recommendation.
a. What did Mcl!enry then sayy a. He made use
oi some words purporting that he would be ev en-
with linn (harland).
+ Mr. Samuel A. Pike was next examined, his testi
In0ny being idenlicaly the same as that given by
hlin on the examination before the Commissioner
The prosecution then closed, when Mr.. h. d.
Mccarthy addressed the jury for the defence, con-
tending that the testimony OF McHenry In relation
"a Mr.. Rollins was perfectly consistent with dii-
s"neut a"a thaa the evidence aresentel did not
sustain the avermcnt. The case VIII be resumed
tni5 morning.