The New York herald., 1870-02-24
THE COOK WHlSkEY CASE.

Tue csss OF the United States ys. Martin X. Cook
was called up yesterday, before United States Com
missioner Belts in this city and the examination
resumed. The proceedings are daily increasing
In interest," as evidenced by the numbers who
press into the room to hear what tran
spires whether OF evidence or argu-
ment OF counsel. or course the room as no
previous days. was crowded. With the usual mis-
erabe lack Of accommodations why the Commits
soner snould select Willingly room greatly In
adequate to the required accommodation when he
might have had the Circuit Court II a mystery
~ all concerned in the case The proceedings yes
ierdas we're not 80 Important or interesting as had
been looked Tor and at the close the further eXamin
alton was adjourned 10 Friday.
samuel +. STREET, u wholesale liquor dealer exam.
ined-kncw Farrington for about three years as a
general revenue Inspector; saw harrington In con.
nectlon with HIS business
q. What transpired between you and him in that
connccttonY
Objcctedto.
Mr.. Pierrepont said the object OF the question WAS
to show fraudulent arrangements between the wit
ness and harrington similar To those they sought 10
establish rs between Cook. the defendant, and Far.
ringtOn.
The Commissioner ruled out the question as too
remote IN its bearing upon the case before him.
Edward Cooper examined-Was DooKkeeper to +.
f. Stevens, United States gauger from 1855 10 1869;
knew IN August, 1858 OF gauging for Gordon, Eel
lows & McMlllan: Mr.. Cook used to come TO the
office IN relation 10 the 2augng OF the drm,
Objected TO.
Admitted.
a. On those occasions what did Cook do or sayg
ODltCtcu 10 rs eHtTely irrelevant anu OH Tile
ground that 1t must be proven by documents.
Admitted on The ground thar II was sought by the
question TO show tnat the defendant III other cases
uld the same act with winch he Is now charged.
A. Never had any conversation with Cook about
any gaugings, but saw him speak to stevens: IN
October, 1865 there return; October ~ TWO
returns February. 1862 other returns, and returns
on September OF the same year, and returns up to
MaIcn. 1869.
MIR. Carter objected to the testimony on the ground
tnat counsel would not be able TO know what course
TO pursue III Inc deeace II irrelevant papers were
offered.
The Commissioner said he thought the papers
might be introduced TO snow the anlus
Mr. Carter remarSed tnat such decision was ad-
verse to all law and precedent 1t was III itself like
an attempt to prove man had committed other
onences beside the one WIN which he was charged,
In order 70 make Out q case. The intent was I'm
portant Now how could they prove the intent OF
the transaction
Mr. Carter said the intent and motive OF the Dis.
trict Attorney III Offering the paper was obvious. II
was done Tor the purpose OF preludicing the mnd OF
the Commissioner by reason of transactions outside
oil the present case because the District Attorney
was conscious he had no evidence IN the present
case
could nor be- introduced. because they had admit
tediy no cOnhection with the case. The papers did
n0I ,,, o,au NJ Earrmg.on az tae psttc. At'ormey
both nc eendants are on trial togetnerY
The Commissioner admitted the evidence.
Witness, 10 the next question, replied that he did
not know OF any other returns than those referred
10 by him.
Ebenezer B. Snafer recalled ed-Handed a with
drawai entry Of wniskey.
q. What IL the mode OF Withdrawing whiskeyp A.
The withdrawal Is sent to the oiiice. tHere witness
failed TO identify now much OF the writing on the
paper was originally on 1t when 1t came to nm.)
q. What was the practice III Withdrawing whlskey
In AugustY A. could not say now; the first thing
was the presentation for withdrawal, which was
then sent TO the gauger, who gauged II. and the
gaugers return sent TO the merchant, informing him
OF the tax, which tax was computed and certified In
the Tax Collectors Office; after the money was paid
and the whiskey Withdrawn the paper was filed In
the Collectors Office.
Cross-exarnned--Cannot recognize the check nor
the paDer produced; used one like IL.
Hanfied Tucker, recalled-Testlfied that +. d.
White, whose name was attached TO the withdrawal
entry, was either Il clerk or partner In the nrm,
and ne believed that the figures denoting the tax
tnaL entry were III the handwriting OF John s.
Grigg.
MIR. Pierrepont said he would probably recall the
witness Grigg 10 give further testimony on this
point.
The witness closed by saying that one OF the bonded
warehouses OF the firm OF Gordon, Fellows McMil-
Ian was run In his witness name.
Adjourned I'LL Jo-morrOw.