The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-06

n, r,.man-r tn,nk II ouant 70 be sut,cient for

n. rssmaln-I MINK It ought 70 be sunicient for
u to say that we oner tine warrant IN evidence.
use this evidence as evidence in chief 70 establish
the Oh s onO think
the warrant itself Is evidence.
evidences before finally submitting the quesiion TO
" The Court then took a recess
AFTER RECESS.
William & COPELAND, sworn-Q. Were you EN-
pl0yed IN the Comptrollers office IN lS70Y A. YES
was employed as . bOokkeeper in the county bu-
reau; know the routine Of business with claims
O. State what was donef A. Mr.. watson would
hand the papers to Mr.. Lynes, who would give mem
right; have been thus employed often the claims
would be sent back to Mr.. Watson. witness then
na Tue Stages ny yoncser IN the same
way as the preceding witness
q. DO you know what was done with the certid-
cate OF audttY A. Mr.. Lynes would attach IL 10 the
papers; it would then go to Mr.. Watson.
O. How long after that would It be before It was
brought DackS A. Sometimes the same day and
sometimes two or three-n0t longer than tnat; IL
would depend on whether the Mayor was down or
Q. When it came back to Mr.. Lynes was there any
other paper attached to 1t besides the certeate OF
WARRANT sis signed b. the Comproiier
O. What was then done? A. Mr.. Lynes would
prepare the warrant from the blll, and would SEND
Comptroller and Clerk OF the Board OF Supervisors.
Q. How long would 1t be absent this second timer
A. Generally It came back again the same day; the
papers always accompanied The warrant.
@. What was then d0ne-after 1t came back
signedY A. MI. Lynes entered the warrant on the
Q. DID Mr.. Lynes sign anything A. He counter
signed IL as being registered In the audit book
O. Then what was doneq A. II Mr.. Garvey's
men happened to be there, Mr.. Lynes would give 1t
to HIM, with blank form OF receipt; II not, Mr..
q. Did you file away the vouchersY A. Yes, SIR;
FLED them away in the cupboards against the wall
hath 'a1aa nj a
vouchers were kept underneath the desk where MIR.
Lynes wrote filed away the vouchers personally;
Q. Did you look at any Of the Garvey voucherss
A.. Nearly all OF them.
minedS what papers were there attached to them
The question was objected to and ruled out by the
o. DO you know Of any claims being presented
other than those purporting to have been acted
upon by the Board OF Audit
Before the question was answered another long
discussion ensued upon what nao now become the
old question Of the status OF She warrant ana the
audit book. MI. Burrill having made long argu-
the Court said:-1n the Judgment Of the Court.
there IL sufficient preliminary proof OF bill or ac
count Of Garvey, with the ordinary official papers
attached to 1t, on which the warrant was issued.
having been on file In the COmptrOlers ONCE.
There Is sufficient preliminary evidence OF its loss
and destruction to justify the prosecution in giving
Mr. Tremalne then offered the warrant as evidence
showing the contents and nature OF the account
alluded to IN the Indictment
me defence having objected, the Court ruled as
follows:-Tnere are tnree stages OF an inquiry OF
this kind. FIRST preliminary proof addressed en-
urely to the Court which involves the question
whether the document was In existence, and
whether 1t has been lost destroyed, TO put 1t
out or the power of the party to produce the doc
ument itself, and which being satisfactorily
asceltatned and examined by the Court
the party Is then at liberty to give oral
contents or nature or that document was. That Is
the second stage. That evidence OF Itself Is to be
taken in lieu OF the production OF the instrument
Itself. 1t Is supposed 20 take Its place. 1t Is sup
posed to furnish by more imperfect evidence what
would be displayed by the exhibition Of the de-
iirey distinguishaDle from the consequences or
effect IN evidence OF the instrument, If II mad been
produced, or the evidence which establishes its
nature or contents That Is the third stage
evidence IN chief When there is SUFFICIENT
evidence to satisfy the minds OF the jury to the
contents and nature OF the document, tnen and not
till then, can they give any effect TO the document.
what that effect should be Is question arising in
It's natural after the mind Is satisfied to the
nature and contents Of the instrument itself. That
Is to my mind so plain that think 1t requires no
further illustration.
The counsel tor the defence then stated that they
0ndary evidence, on the ground that the original
document 1.-THE lost v0ucherj would be incOnse.
| quential evidence in the case
| This raised a lengthy and somewhat discursive
proposed 10 adjourn, 30 that they might have time
| to confer together and decide whether they would
argue their objection to the relevancy OF the re-
qured document, II 1t could be put In now, or
This practically means whether they VIII argue to
quash the Indictment. Re- ~ -
The Court then adjourned to this morning at
eleven O'Clock.