The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-20

o9e housand three hundred and nineteen 1920 dollars
5 s''i' '',''' - : Ast )
Endorsed, f. A. Howard.
For deposits account OF Dibbee Howard
This check, said the witness, was made out by
myself, IN room No. 4, in house Is Cedar street,
William II. whimster was present; it was made pay
able the order OF r. A. Howard at the special re-
quest of Whlnster, who said that Howard should be
made endorse the check, so that II any trouble
should come he could be held; the check was for ten
per cent to Howard on internal revenue drawback
office No Barclay street. when Howard asked
Whmster to send on the balance OF The ten per cent
due on claims collected knows Towards signature;
the endorsement on the check Is F. A. Howard's.
CrosseXamned by Mr.. Buck-These claims were
bogus; knows not personally that Howard was inter.
ested in passing bogus claims, but only from what
Whlmster told witness.
To the Commissioner-Tbs was in the fau OF 1885,
By Mr. Buck-There were concerned In 1t VIM. H.
Whimster, VIM. j. Korn the Caldwels, and after
wards julius ii. Mott Alexander Grant, Jr., George
". Green, - Resenberger, Therrlot and Mr. +.
does not know about Biatchford. Upon the mention
Of the name OF Alexander Grant, Jr., the District
Attorney was surprised and began further 20
inaure into the extent OF this PERSONS completely In
these systematic frauds, when Mr. Phelps, the
Assistant District Attorney stepped up and whls-
pered to Judge Pierrepont that 1t was all right, as
Grant had been indicted by the Grand Jury that
very morning whereupon Judge Plerrepont desisted
from this line OF pursuit.
10 the Commissioner Witness opened bank ac-
count with Howard's firm OF DlbDee Howard
under false name, by advice OF WhlmsLer the
name he assumed was A. D. Walton; this was for
the pun pose Of depositing with Howard the govern
ment warrants received on drawback claims; How
ard knew that witness had assumed false name
because witness had also dealings IN his real name
with Howard, who knew witness as Wilson.
by Mr. Buck-Wltness was never Introduced to
Howard as Wilson, out had business transactions
with him; not a bank account but gave HIM checks
TO buy government bonds for witness; he does not
know Of Howards interest," IN the claims except
through Minister; witness can't positively swear,
but can come very near IT, that Howard knew that
Walton was a false name; when witness called at
the banking house OF Dibbiee d Howard Dibbiee
spoke to him as Mr. Walton; he didn't like to be
called Walton the presence OF friends, and he
asked Howard to post DibDee In the matter and
that he should not call hun Walton.
Judge Perrepont then asked the witness for some
| conversation between him ana Whimster, and the
| witness was about answering:-'.Wh imster" said
| he, "Howard-' when Mr.. Buck objected to the
| question and the answer.
| The Commssloner-On what ground
Mr.. Buck-1his Is a conversation between parties
not in the presence OF the defendant and therefore,
/ mere hearsay
The Commssioner-This is case of conspiracy,
and the and declarations Of one OF tue parties
| to 1t are evidence against all conspirators.
The witness then contlnued:-He understood from
WV s ecea and 10 en corre per on ~
the amount; the account was opened with Howard,
in the name Of Walton for tue deposit Of the war,
Howard was very smart that he would never take
check, but ready money; he tWhimster. wanted
Howard to endorse check and bind himself.
Judge Plerrepont here rested the for the gov
eminent, all the other evidence IN his possession
would only be cumulative.
Mr. Buck desired an adjournment, as he expected
| some documentary evidence from Washington, to
| which Judge Perrepont replied that he had ali the
papers from asnington, and Mr.. Buck could nave
any he wanted TO use In the case for tine defence.
| Mr.. Buck-Aave you Mr.. Howard's letter Of resg-
| Judge Pierrepont-No sir but Will admit the
date OF Mr.. Towards resignation OF his oice as the
| counsel may stale IT,
MIR. Buck-Mr. Howard resigned on the 31st day
| OF December, 1885,
Judge Pierrepont-very well, let it be SO ad-
The further bearing was then postponed to next
Wednesday.
The case OF
! RoMEyN MULLIGAN
was then called, having been adjourned over from
/ Saturday TIL yesterday. Judge QuacSenboss re-
marked that II would hardly be convenient neces
sary to enter into the case at SO late hour, 1t
being past three clock, but the Commissioner con-
their case on saturday, Judge Quackenboss. on
! behalf OF the defence proposed to place Mr.. Multi
gan On Tue saad as witness ,or himself as H., ana ~
matter. He claimed 1t as right OF the
prisoner, though he knew that lnere were
however, that the District Attorney Would
not hold TO technical rules. but would be found as
State courts. He Judge Quackenboss had made
application to Mr.. Pierrepont to bring Mr.. X. b. Cad-
| well here from Canada and place him on the stand
as witness II the District Attorney would grant a
| safeguard and immunity from arrest; but
| MT. Pierrepont refused. He then asked the
| District Attorneys consent 10 unite IN a commls-
sion to take the testimony OF r. b. Caldwell, In Can
ada, to contradict Korn, but this also refused.
everything would be fully explained, and what now
! appeared suspicious would no longer be So Judge
testimony OF Korn and said that II anything could
convert him TO the doctrine OF "tota depravityr IL
was tins mans testimony whose very manner
the stand proves him TO be q perurer.
Judge Pierrepont In reply. said that the District
Attorney did not refuse TO have Mr.. 4. y. Caldwell
brought into court TO testify, did he object the
defence bringing him here from Canada; but the Dis
trict Attorney could not promise that If once here,
Mr. tla
he, himself, personally, was IN favor OF
did his best to get such law passed In the state
Legislature rs TO civil cases. He looked with favor
uDon the extension OF this reform to criminal pro-
ceedinRs, and his influence would be with those who
might ask Congress TO pass similar provision for
proceedings III the federal courts As yet it is not
law. In tue case OF Mcdenry, In the District Court
this point was decided against the application and
the Judge followed The authority OF similar decision
rendered by Mr. Justice Nelson.
The Commissioner stated that under the authority
OF these decisions he could not admit Mr.. Muliigan
10 testify but at the close OF the EXAMINATION Ir
Mulligau might make statement OF his side Of the
case not under OATH, ana that wi be taken into
sheraton
allowed TO cross=examlne MIR. Mullgan.
Judge MISUNDERSTANDING; we consent to that.
Mr.. Barton NJ. Johnson was then sworn on behalf
OF the defence ana testned-Resides In BROOKLYN;
was IN business in this city IN 1865; Ia the oil
commission business at No. 100 Pearl street; the
firm was u M. Johnson & Co.; his partner was
Romeyn Mulligan; saw korn at their once from
thirty to forty times; had specimens of OIL IN the
store; one who came to the store could know their
business from the samples OF oil, their business
cards, billheads and envelopes; their business for
eight months exceeded $4,000; heard CONVERSE
ton OF Caldwell with Mulltgan the former asking
permission 10 use the arm name OF b. NJ. Johnson
Co in collecting drawback claims
Judge Pierrepont objected TO such Conversations
being Introduced, as no such conversations were put
In evidence by the prosecution, and as IL would not
even be q defence and Is not legal evidence.
Judge Quackenboss replied that CALDWELL TO iacii-
tauc the collection OF claims asked to be allowed to
usN the name of the 1rm ano that Muligan or his |
nrm were not interested IN those Claims
Judge Pierrepont rebuted by saying that it was |
not legal evidence Here was dram ana an afida- |
Wit with endorsements and the Signature IN Multi |