The New York herald., 1871-02-01
FRAUDULENT BONDS.
Important Case Affecting the Execution OF
Bonds In the United States Court.

One Of q number Of cases that continually come
up in the United states Court of the District and
which give considerable trouble to the officials in
the first place, in assuring themselves that profes-
sona bond gvers are in fact the possessors of the
property on which they justify, ana aiterward on
elfectually prosecuting them, came up yesterday
before Com missioner Osborn in the United States
Commissioners Court. This class OF Offenders have
done incalculap!e injury to the administration Of
justice In the federal courts during the whiskey ring
regime, and their exposure whenever case Is
really made out against them, is a public require
ment The case In point Is that OF the United States
VS.. stephen Sherlock. The defendant is charged,
under the act OF Congress Of the 5tn Of April 1885,
with having forged and caused to be uttered ana
published false and fraudulent bond, with intent
to defraud the government of the United States.
The bond purpored to have been signed by one John
Brennan, and given on properly belonging to him
in East Thirteenth street.
Mr.. A. II. Purdy appeared for the government.
The defendant was also represented by counsel
THE TESTIMONY.
The bond in question and the ofrical record OF 1t
were given In evidence by the United States Assist.
ant District Attorney.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN BRENNAN.
John Brennan sworn-I never saw Mr.. Sherlock
the defendant, to my knowledge, till saw him
three or four days ago in this court see the sigma
bond book; 1t is not my signature; do not write
my name in that way there are two letters left out:
l Inever signed a bond in this court in my lite;
have lived at NO. % West Thirteenth street up to
June, ls69, when left; kept shop there for re-
pairing wagons; had house and lot there which
sold about fourteen days before l lett; the place
was heavily mortgaged; the signature to the 1ustin
cation dated 20tn day Of july 1869, is not In my
Handwriting.
Not cross-eXamined.
COMMISSIONER BErTs on THE STAND
Mr.. George +. Belts, Clerk or the cOurt called
by Mr.. Purdy and the Justification Landed to him.
Mr.. Belts sad he recognized MS signature to this
document. From the TACT OF signing the paper he
recolects that some person swore To the paper be-
fore him. but he has not the least recollection OF the
incidents OF the transaction.
Cross-examined-lt is usual for persons swearing
to bonds to sign the bond and then come before me
ana acknowledge the signature thereto to be their
signature; 1t is not my to particularly notice
or ascertain the identity OF the partes always see
in the execution OF these bonds that the District At
torney Is represented and satisfied with the bond
and II IS opposed hear the parties and take the
evidence.
TESTIMONY OF MR.. EaERsoN
Mr. Emerson, OF the District Attorneys Office de.
posed that the body OF the justification was In his
handwriting: from this fact he was able to say that
q man came before him, gave him statements ana
ne put them IN writing: parties on the part OF Mr.
4o2 East Twenty-fith street; Mr. brewster and
others appeared with the sureties; examined the
party who represented himselr 70 be john Brennan
ana also man representing himself to be John
Moser; have seen Moser since; he Is the same per-
son who signed this bond have no recollection as
ComInssioner-Is the John Brennan who is pre-
sent the person VINO signed The bonds
Mr.. Emerson-I cannot say
The Commssioner-Was Mr. Sherlock the defend
ant, present.!
MIR. Emerson-I cannot say; but there was a
person present representing himself to be Mr.. Sher
lock-
Crosse examlned-There was another party pre.
sent but do not recollect who it was: was not
personally acquainted with any OF the sureties.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN II. CLYNE.
J0hn il. Clyne sWorn-I remember the seiZing of
IT. ar Fac
Twentyfith street; recognize Mr. sherlock as The
person VINO claimed the property; he Is the person
who was examined here before Commissioner Os-
born Tor DONG business these premises as a
wholesale dealer without license,
Cr0SS-eXan1ned-l knew from The records that
Mr. SneIlock was connected with this prof erty Mt
402 East Twenty-filh street: knew nothing abou.
this property being the same as that referred to IN
the bond; am part inormer In this case: reported
thc lacts oil the case to the collector; have no
eartnly reason 10 expect anything for giving this In
FORMATION; wnat may expect Is something more
thaii lhey may nc disposed 10 give me-
kedTect-l thnk | first saw Mr.. Sherlock. the
defendant. the day OF the seizure on the premises
referred 10; believe saw him there Afterwards.
ms was the case for the government.
MOTION TO DISMISS.
CounScl 10Y deiennant moved TO dismiss the com.
Flalnt. on the ground that II had not been proved.
MI Furdy opposed The motion.
. Inc commissioner denied the motion, stating
lheIe was PROOF given that crime hal been COM
inilteu ana ihet IL was probable Mr.. Sherlock had
connited ". ~ was. therefore, for the defendant
toexpaln MS part IN the transaction.
till tO. - -