The New York herald., 1870-02-26
uElTtD STATES cpMAss oaEaS cou7T.
The Enilcy-C0Ok Whiskcy Case.
Before Commissioner Belts.

Before Commissioner Belts.
The United States ps. Martin Il. COoI.-The cx-
animation in this case WAS resumed yesterday. Al
on tho previous days the coart room was most
inccnveniently crowded.. AT the opening OF the
court counsel for tac defence moved that the
charge against Cook be dismissed, Us no offence
mad been proven. IL had been eudavored 10 prove
other offences tnan the one specified, but no direct
aovidence had been given showing that the onence
specihed had Deen committed, much loss thai Cook
had committed 1t. the search warrant against Cor
don. Fellows Mcmillan was issued and executed
long before any affidavit stating facts had Decn
made. Tho offence charged was alleged to havc
been committed long before Collector Bailey came
into o1lce In the Thirty second district and he was
under no 0fncio obligation 10 rake the extraordi-
nary steps he had taken IN this case. The prose-
cutlon was predicated upon certain entries In
the books ana papers OF the firm, which the
prosecution had taxen upon itse to lnter9rcs
" SUIT i,s own ends. II aad been sought to obtain
evidence a2snss the accused Oy scizlnx the books
anu papers IN advance OF making crininaI charge.
MOI line or writing proved 70 be Cooks had boen
gwen In evidence. Is mad not Deen shown
now many salons tao 1873 Darres in ques-
lion contained, and, consequently, 1t could not
DC SHOWN wnctncr any fraud was committed IN gauy-
lug the whiskey VI the moment when II was with
9rawn from bond and on winch tho tax was paid.
u au not even been en0Mn what Tho In Ques-
ton contained. IL was Oil presum plion anu
luierence. A paper voluntarily given into
W
been introduced as strong evidence against
him, on the ground that ne Knew and was
Responsible Tor It's contents 1t was Improbable thai
u the contents Of that paper $40 ed lraud, ana
Cook knew It's contents. thai he would have vOlun-
tariiy furnished evaence Of MS Ow guilt IL was
more probable ina. The paper contained true state
nlent or that II 1t Contained ia SC one, Cook was
ignorant OF lts contents. the sworn onicia return
OF harrington as u contents oil the l.i3 barrels
was of more weight tlan mere unofficial deciara-
tons found II the BOOKS and papers OF Gordon.
Fellows ~ McMilan. The entries III lnese books and
n lAl Mar Inastt uuh
manner as 70 slow the entire innocence Of Cor
aon, Fellows McaIlan OF any compllcitv in Inc
offence Charged OUT these parties ana not intend to
disclose the secrets sf tncr business wnen no
case mad been made out duplicating tnem In
any Of1cnce.
District Attorney rierrepont In reply. said that all
the circumstances surrounding tue case went
snow 10 any one using his sense and JuugmenI that
guilt existed Ia TINS case and ma the evidence n-
trod1eed fastened that gut concluSlyely upon Cook
ana Farring.ou. There had been two galgngs Of
the whlskey IN question: tue gauging ny harrington
a. the withdrawal from bond returning the barrels
as containing about . thousand gallons less than
returned by nlm short time previously. 1t had
been shown tnat Cook the act ve patty in with
drawing the whlskey, and that he had, about the
time Of she Withdrawal frequently sent envelopes,
undoubtedly cOnta ntDg money, 70 Harrington; and
an addition 10 this proof the books and papers Of Cor
don, Fellows Mchilian conclusi ely showed that the
barfcls III question, ON being wlthurawn, contained
ABOUT the a.0ounl returned by Harrington when the
later rSt EauQed II on us being entered III Dond.
~; PierrsDont tacn went over tae evidence IN de-
explained or reDutteu WAS quite sufficient to war
ialt tue case being sent TO the Grand Jury.
lie case WAS tnen adourned until today.
Alleged Internal Revenue Fraud.
Before Commissioner Shields.
Tne United States Us Thomas Rydn.-Thc defen-
dant was charged with doing business as wholesale
liquor dealer and compounder OF distilled spirits
Wlt1out paying inc lnlernM revenue tax thereon.
Mi. Ethan Allen, ex-United States District Aitor-
ney, appeared for the defendant, aud made able
argument on benaI vi his client. The Commissioner
held rne defendant for trial on the charge or manu-
1acturing liquor wltlUut paying the special tax
thereon, but dismissed the UGner cnarges