The New York herald., 1870-04-19
mPURITY OF TEE BALLOT.
The Brooklyn Election Fraud Cases Again in
Court-Two Trials Yesterday-An Ex-super-
visor Accused Of Counting Himself
In" = Acquitted by the Jury Tho
Frauds in the Second Ward.

In the Kings County Court OF Oyer and Terminer
yesterday morning District Attorney Morris called
ON several OF the election fraud cases. In accord.
ance with notice previously given counsel for de-
PENDANTS, Mr.. Britton. The case first called was
that OF Patrick Mclaughlin and Peter Fitzpatrick,
but Mclaughlin alone responded. The case OF James
r. Lomas and John Norton was next called, the lat
ter OF whom only was present Upon motion OF Mr..
Morris the recognizances OF both Fitzpatrick aud
Lomas were forfeited.
Mr.. Morris called the case OF ex-Supervisor James
W. Walsh, and Mr.i Walsh responded, but itiwas then
discovered that Patrick Dunn, important witness,
was missing. An attachment was issued for him,
and at about one O'Clock he was produced IN court
when the trial OF Walsh proceeded.
AmOtion to have the Indictment quashed made
by Mr.. Britton, was denied by Judge Barnard and
ex-Judge Moore began to open the case for the
people. The Indictment charged tnar Walsh VINO
acted as canvasser In district OF the Twentysec-
Ond ward and was candidate Tor reelection az
Supervisor,
ALTERED THE RETURNS
from tnat district, taking votes from Mr. Hail. his
republican opponent, and crediting them to himself
IN order to obtain majority There were several wit
nesses examined on behalf OF the prosecution, from
whose testimony 1t appeared that one set OF returns
was given to the defendant according to law The
being Supervisor at the me) to deliver to the Board
Of Canvassers; that the returns were not tampered
with up to the time they were given to the defend.
ant. and that when they were opened in the Board
Of Canvassers the alterations were discovered. IL
further appeared that all three sets or returns had
been changed the alterations IN each being precisely
similar.
The prosecution here rested.
Mr. BrlttOn said he dlu not propose TO open the
case, and Immediately called Mr.. Walsh, the defend.
ant, who testified that upon receiving the package
anu left II there until the canvassers met about five
DAYS afterwards: he then delivered It to the can
vassers Witness swore that from the time he re-
celved the package until he delivered II to the Board
he nad nothing TO do, directly or indirectly with
any alterations OF the returns On the cross-examl
nation by eX-Judge Moore ne stated that the atera-
tlon was first brought to his notice In the city can
Vass; but lie look no means 10
FERRET THE FRAUD OUT
save that he inquired or several persons as to who
could have altered the returns.
Z. Did you go to any person who would be likely
10 know any thing aboutltY A. did not know who
would be likely TO know ABOUT IL.
z. What time did you get home on election nightY ?
"A. did not go home at all
Y. DID you hear the result that nights A. No.
T. DID you hear the result next day2 A. Yes.
u What was It,? A. That was elected.
T. Before you got the returnss A. Yes sir.
q VINO did you hear 1t Irom9 A. Several IN my
ward.
q. Where were you on election night? A. From
one district TO another.
q. Were you at any one district when the result
was declared A. No, sir.
On the redirect Walsh stated that ne had no
reason to believe that any person had occasion to
The defence rested with this testimony. and the
case was closed on both SIDES
Mr.. Britton then summed up, claiming that there
had been no evidence aGduced TO connect the de-
fendant with the fraud.
EX-Judge Moore summed up for the people, argu-
ing that there was something in the case; that Mr.
Hall (republcan) had majority four votes over
Mr.. walsh (dein0crat, the defendant now on trial; {;
and that change OF ten would tnel efOre, materl-
ally arect the result OF the canvass regards super
visor. The prosecution had established tue fact that
when the returns were delivered to Walsh they were
not changed, and that wnen they were opened the
fraud was discovered.
Judge Barnard delivered a brief but eomprehen-
sive charge TO the jury who retired. ana alter re-
verdict OF mot guilty." Mr.. Walsh thereupon arose
and thanked them.
WAS SHERIFF WALTER COUNTED OUT THE YHIRD
DISTRICT OF THE SECOND wARDY
The case OF Patrick Mclaughlin and Peter FitZ.
patrick, jointly Indicted was next called on. Fitz-
patrick was present this time. bhe defendants were
canvasserS In the third district OF the Second ward
and the Indictment charged that they falsely
counted the vote there for sner and superintendent
of the poor. They gave Mr.. Walter, the republican
candidate for shcrl, fftyeignt votes, whereas the
prosecution claimed, he really received ninety
woes. similar discrepancy, District Attorney
MOTIFS Claimed IN MS opening, existed with regard
to the vote for superintendent Of the poor.
City Clerk BisnOp testified that the defendants
quallfied before Nun as canvassers
Mr. John B. Pitt was present at the canvass OF the
votes at the district In question eecion night.
He had an opportunity to count over ninety votes
tally and to the best OF his ability, he would say
that Mr.. McCann, one OF the poll clerks, did not
either. The canvassers were not satisfied whether
the law required them TO Keep tally the poll
clerks; but they finally settled dOwn TO the opinion
that 1t was the business OF The poll clerks.
AT this point the court adjourned until this morn
Ing AZ ten O'Clock, when MIR. Pitt testimony will be
continued.