New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-03-06

vouchers, A. Yes nled them In tlls under the desk
!" -" Did Won look at the vouchersi A. Most Of them.
Q. How Qany OF the Gsryey vouchers dd you look al
A. Nearly all. .
This was objected to the ground that IL was an IN
direct way OF getting at the contents OF the voucher
question without proving that the witness had seen 'e
Mt Peekham tried to put the question in jess oDjec
o. Do You know Of any case where warrant was
drawn upon the account Of county liabilities except
upon a claim that had been presentedi .,.o =.
MI Burill raised objection TO THIS qnesnon sso, ~
there absence of proof OF knowledge on the
of this witness IN regard to this matter monS O Se
Lyness testimony clear and Distinct that was
but from the audit book and book No was solely
copied from the warrant, and contains no other lorna
ton was mad made , up rGm ThS s %hr'
Judge DAILY said that he understood the Audit DOCK 10
Mr. Burr said that in this instance where the parties
the names and sought to identity In general way
the lost when tine oo hrn 'ha viii n"Se
appropriate evidence whether or not the paper Sought
for lost but on the evidence OF the existence OF Ie
n oS Even usy Were cond
Judge Day held that matter Of fact the exist
thorize the secondary evidence OF It's contents
Mr. stoughton tried to ward of this solid blow against
the defense by suggesting that the GSut aa not nC
though admitted here because that question had not
yet been argued. Judge DAILY SAID the question:
All he decided for the present was, that
1t for the prosecution to prove the nature ana
contents OF these documents so far as they oer any par
cuar piece Of evidence and there was any objection
made to Its addition the Court would pass upon the
question. He understood Mr. TPemain to offer the ar
piece OF evidence tending 10 show the nature
and contents of the account, whatever the prelimn
airy paper may have been prior to the issuing OF the
warrant There three steps In the proof ~ OF ex
stence and loss OF document. That was disposed Oh
o. Proof oral and otherwise OF the contents or the
document That was now to be gwen ana d the enects
Mr. Burr excepted to the decision TO the suciency
OF the preliminary proof and also TO the warrant which
was presen In double aspect-as secondary evidence
of the original claim and evidence in chief under the
second count OF the indictment OF the payment Of the
claim.
The dispute to what was evidence in chief and
what secondary was disposed OF by Judge Daily, VINO
minated that the evidence must be excluded in whole
admitted In whole that ifit was found proper only
secondary evidence then the Court would properly
direct the jury and that secondary evidence II was
The following is the warrant:
x
80 To the County Treasury Of sew-YOrs at the Ma .
8 ""nA Dro SO Ss San1 YcYofi Jae 9Th $50
ID Pay A. J. GsTey, or orer Fortgone thon.
=1sS thousand Eve hundred and .Iyi nr C t2,oo
@ss9 Court house. Dee 10TH 1863
-E-E A. OAKEY HALL Mayer.
&c RICHARD b. CONNOLLY, Controller
50 j. l. lOuS0, Clerk BID. Of supervisors.
Judge DAILY intimated that the question bad better be
argued later Mr.. StOughtOn in rather excited manner.
subject He could assure the Court that now was the
proper time to discuss the question: since the other SIDE
might he willing to allow the objections hereafter
Mr. Treman expressed the intention or the prosecution
not advantage Of them in any objections they
might make.
The Court then adjourned