The New York herald., 1870-02-23
THE GREAT WHISKEY RAID.
BAILEY ON THE wARpATH.
The Martin 4. Cook Case-A Big Thing on In
formers Moieties-A Protracted and
Interesting Session.


fore Commissioner Belts, and was agaln adjourned,
after protracted session. A mole than usual
amount OF interest attaches to the case from the
rather unprecedented and able strategy OF the COL
ector whO through his subordlnates, worked II MP.
That the result Is OF the greatest interest to the
defendant, to the government and especially 10 the
informers appears from the fact that the informers
moleties alone will amount, In case the property
seized should be condemned to $4,000.
Yesterday the miserable room In which the Com.
missioner held the examination was most incon
venently crowded, the few seats provided having
been first seized upon by the more curious though
least Interested portion OF the spectators, while
the defendants friends the witnesses both sides
and the reporters OF the press were compelled to
stand up throughout the heightened proceedings
District Attorney Pierrepont conducted the prosecu
ton: Messrs. Carter, Bell, Sedgwck and Pelton ap-
peared for The defence.
THE PROPERTY SEIZED.
The following Official record SHOWS the amount
OF property SEIZED and for the forfeiture OF which
the present action is brought
The United States 400 barrels a.led spirits a. No. So
Same 50 barrels distilled spirits 90 barrels Morris rye
6 barrels distilled Spirits ut 80 and ~ Pear street ana a. 20
Same vs. s54 barrels Morris rye 100 Bourbon s5
Same S53 barrels distilled spirits marked Buford Co..
23 barrels distilled spirits marked Buiord Guthner Co..
at
Same s IS barrels bourbon whskcy 1874 rye whs
Key y barrels BoaGoSn Thsssy - ye a.
The first witness examined was Moses NJ. Webb
recalled: :-On being handed exhibits Nos 8, and s,
being copies OF returns made fr0ln the books OF
Gordon, Fellows II Nc MILAN, he depOsed they were
taken from the books OF the firm; he incurred he
thought OF Mr. Cook IN all cases Tor the DOCKS OF the
firm.
John Il. Grggs recalled and testified that Cook di-
recled the shipment OF whskey 70 Boston, referred
TO III his previous testimony, and appeared at the
time most anxious 10 get tine whisKey; defendant
had the general supervision VI the business or Cor
don, Fellows Mcmillan, particularly q sales; ne
actions OF the firm, with regard 10 purchases and
sales. IRON whom goods were purchased and TO
wnom sold; he COOK was good deal around inside
the Office among The Clerks saw the barrels or Wills
Key shipped to Boston; tney were not marked or
branded with The letters 4. d.; alter he lwltness)
was served with a subpoena to attend the examlna.
tion COOK told him 1t was not necessary to attend,
but told nm To go and see ms gulger tfarringtonl
Inc books OF the frm relating TO the gaagin2 and
contents Oh the shipments or wnlskey were offered
IN evidence and objected to.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT or THE OBJECTION.
Mr.. Carter Tor defendant, oblectng, said that the
evidence sought to be introduced being copies taken
from the books OF Gordon. Fellows a. Mcmillan oI
ceriain entries alleged 10 nave been made therein
was no evidence against the defendant that Mi.
entries was mol IN any shape or way shown; that
the defendant was no more bound by these entries
than were the other members OF the firm; that the
envelopes which the witness Grggs swore were de
livered by him TO harrington, ana which ne (Griggs)
supposed contained money was no evidence to show
that these envelopes or letters were not delivered In
the honest course OF business, and Ii they did con-
tain money, that that money was not egtimaely PAID
or services as ganger bas Desaes rnat c1ansel
livery OF those envelopes whether tney dl0 or did not
contain money with the transactions alleged against
Mr.. Cook. Even were counsel for the defence
cede the fact sought to be established by pr0secu
ton thus lar OF Cooks connection with the returns
tended would not make the defendant Responsible
for the original entries.
Judge PierrepOnt said he had nothing 10 urge in
the way OF argument.
THE OBJECTION ovERRuLED.
The Commissioner. in ruling, said that the doc
trine he held yesterday, when this point irst
raised, was the true One-that was that III criminal
cases mere partnership books could not be intro
duced to charge personally one OF the partners &C.
cused OF cTlme The question Is not one OF pecunlary
liability but question OF evidence AZ TO know.
ledge OF facl,. In such case the prosecution may
knowledge or the entries by the defendant This
y wnat tney want 70 estaells. me mere peconlary
made oy an unauthorized agent on question OF
partnership, though SO mucn discussed, cannot be
considered in connection with the question before
the court. The highest Klnd OF evidence in these
eases would be TO show PERSONS own proper hand
writing; but IL VIII not be concluded that that Is not
the only KIND Of evidence. II person has paper
in his cusIody-under his control-Inadc up under
his supervision assented to knowingly or adopted
10y hun IN SUCH a way as to make him chargcabic
with q knowledge OF the contents Of the paper and
recognizing the truth Of It's contents, tnat evidence
Is admissible against such person; ana the papers
here produced would to tnat extent be admissible
against the defendant. The question TO be considered
here Is whether the facts and circumstances III
this show that these entries IN the books OF
such character as TO make them admissible as evl.
dence against the defendant Cook. rne government
produce first, paper, marked exhibit b, which Is
proved 10 have been taken by the defendant from
box safe. 1t Is true that tnat box safe was not
nis personal property; but the mere TACT that three
or four other parties may also De responsible does
not exclude the defendant Cook from responsibility.
The evidence, therefore. shows that Cook was re-
spOnsible for the contents or exhibit Il. The gov
ernment further shows. from the evidence generally,
that Cook was the managing man OF the 1irm tnat
he nad control and supervision OF The business. and
enjoyed i facilities Ior supervising the books Of tile
concern. True there Is not particle OF evidence ~
show tnat he ever made an entry; but there Is
enough show that ne ordered entries TO be made.
Vita regard TO the particular lot OF whlskey shipped
70 Boston the evidence IS Iat he directed Its ship
lnent; that he was anxious Tor immediate despatch
OF the goods. In my Judgment, the evidence INTRO
duced by the government is prima Iacie evidence,
connecting Mr.. Cook with these entries, SO lar
they refer 10 this particular transaction. shall
therefore allow the evidence to be given.
The case was then adjourned till to-day at one +.
NJ II being arranged tnat the session snouid Sit
one 10 i've 4. VI.
SHOCKING RAILROAD ACCIDENT.