The New York herald., 1872-04-12
TEE CLOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION,
Receiving the Last Scraps OF
Evidence.
What Judge Garvin Thinks OF tho
Special Sessions.

United States, has attracted all the leading lawyers
OF the State 10 that iocate and during the past few
weeks the corridors and barroom have been redo
lent with legal phraseology. Tho judiciary Com
mittee appointed by the House to investigate tho
charges against the Judges Messrs Prince,
Thden, Niles. Strahan, Fiammcr, Vedder, Hayes.
JIM aud ToDey anu these gentlemen have certainly
strven arduouslY IN the pursuance OF the duties To
Which they were assigned. The chairman OF the
committee, Mr.. Prince mas been lndefatiyable
In his laDors, ana Messrs. Miles, Thden Strahan
ana F!ammer have also been regular attendants
NJ tne various business sessions. These gentlemen
nave made some very searching examinations into
the charges against both Judge Barnard and Judge
Cardozo, and evidence taken has jusC been pub
llshed ami makes some seven TO eight hundred
pages. The Judiciary Committee have also Deen
divided into sub-comlntiees, investigating the
business transactions OF the County Clerks office,
Registrars Oflce and District Attorneys onice. Mr.
Strahan is the chairman of the sub committee ap-
pointed TO examine INTO the District Attorneys
olilcc, and ne has been engaged on that task for
some time past. Mr. Strahan examined a number
oi d rne ONCE, ana finds though they are no;
forced force by law to keep ydrs BOOKS % they DO DO
cases cases are entered, AZ the full particulars are
Kept by the Clerk or Special Sessions ana oyer aud
Iermlner. Mr.. Strahan could discover direct
evidence OF any pigeon hong OF indictments, but
- Of the opinion that the ollce should oe forced oy
law 70 keep ,s setoi booHs ana that
MI sIrahan was The only member OF the judiciary
sSs,srday s %gnS d nc
Beden testified In relation TO the Barnard case and
said that he had been personally acquainted wilh
Jim Fisk, ana also associated with him IN the
buying and sciltn9 OF stocAs. He rccoected
FISK having some case against the Union
OF some stock. Whlle the action was
pending witness sad he met Judge Fullerton, who
told MIN That he had authority to effect setLement
III the matter, witness brought hlm and FISK co.
getner IN back oilcc; tney did not arrange mat
AZ the first meeting, hut they met again short
time afterwards, and witness believes tnat the mat
ter was amlcabiy arranged; Judge Fullerton hai
told me that he was empowered % Ouer $4,000 10
make a settlement; some time afterwards Fisk told
me was wrong not to have Joined nlin IN hls Union
iral,saction; he subsequently SAID he hau made
500, 900; understood that the af1air setteu
at the last meeting which tnev ncd IN my ONCE.
Air. william sinclair was tnen examined ana fes-
titled IN relation 10 the order rom the Superior
assessment upon lhe lots on six'y-rnrd street and
the Boulevard. He sad the order was issued Dy
Juuge Barnard and the report VI tne commissioners
was afterwards confirmed by Judge Barnard at
Special Term. Witness also stated that he was not
on friendly terms With Judge Cardolo ana did not
District Attorney samuel B. Garvn testified In
relation 10 the manner 0l proceedings on wnts OF
certOrari III relation TO Judgments IN the Court OF
Special Sessions, and said up 10 the present the
question concerning the Legality OF commitment
by the Court OF Special Sessions when but one Judge
presided had always been considered 30 doubtful
that there never had been any desire TO press tho
SUBJECT because If the case were decided averse 10
hirn the Penltentary would be e,uptied; no he nad
allowed question TO rest undistubed unless the
q. Is IL not lact tnaL when the law required the
presence three Police Justices to conssi ute the
Court OF Special sessions 1t was generally ned by
two, and that when TWO We're necessary II was held
by oneY A. cannot say generally, but IN the GER
tiorarl cases | think it was so; another difficulty
in regard TO the Special Ses-ions was that
since It's organization under the act OF 1870 have
always been AFRAID VI tlat provision being uncon-
O. since the decision in the case OF HUBER IN the
Court OF Appeals, nave you ADVISED tnat tue CourI
three justices? A. have given writlen opinion
10 inat effect, and III addition ADVISED the Police
Justices tnat The Court consists OF three Justices
anu their organization should be under the act
of 1858. wncn act vas recons. .ructed in 1870.
Ex-Jildge Fullerton tnen offered IN evidence q
certIhed copy OF the opinions ~ The Huoer case.
remnrt Of the evidence OF Colonel Freaca IN in the
NEW YORK HERALD. ana denied the statement TO be-
~, N esaa 70 e o FreSc 30 M s ne
Impression lhas the commissioners were III cOlu-
tnat the witness most emphatlcally denied, so far
as ne personally was concerhed; Mr. Jamei H. Cole
man and Mr. ". II. Tracey were the other Com
mi ls,Oners who acted with witness In the mater;
witness believed the appointment WAS made bv
Judge Barnard aiter oelnx appointed Inc Com
missloners visited the lots situated on the Boule.
ward, between SiXty-ihird ami SixtY-fourth Streets
and. nc the suggestion OF one Of the committee. It
was decided TO base the award upon tne previous
Valuations OF adjacent boulevard property. sub
sequcntly, and amer receiving honce vi the award
50 made, Colonel French applied Tor increase OF
award; was reluctant TO grant the motion. and
inumated as much to ny assoclite' un ess the ev.
French afterwards tested before us on tie SUD-
ect, and stated that no was the owner OF the prop
criy; asked INN the last question ~ order to as
certain whether he acting In good faitn; finally
We received the estimates Ol tWeive real estate Ope
raors, many OF whom are OF hiRh Standing and
unon iheir opinion we raised the award; | did SO
In good fam and because the evidence produced
warranted sush a"ton supposed that all the
benefit was to 90 TO Colonel French; have no rca-
son 10 believe that either OF tie other Commission
ers did not act IN sooa ai, III .e ater ,h oeore
oil Judge Cardozo or Judge barnard mentioned
In connection with the Commission, except the
name or the latter regard 70 the appointment VI
said Commission never had any conversation with
Mr. tSratz Nalnan on the subject, except when he
was before the Commission as counSel Tor C0lonei
French: have never thought OF the matter since,
except when received my fees, which, by the way,
Mr. j. +. Valentine ofI,cer Of the Supreme Court.
testified that ne nad been In the habit Oh maxim.
aepo1ils In the bank for Judge CardozO; lie went
Freehold, N. J., Tor the Judge, In January,
1s;0 In order to record some deeds OF prop
erty in Long Branch; Ia December, 1859, he depos
ited $40 COO in The Mecnanics' Bank for the Judge
which was the proceeds OIL some bonds the Judge
sold inc same morning; the Judge a ,terwards drew
other of $4,000 and oad; the Judge had told hun
inat ne was going 10 close up the purchase Of his
Judge Fullerton then presented some evidence In
rebuttal Of the testimony OF William Sinclair, and
showed that Judge Cardozo had granted an order
vacating and setting aside tue order confirming the
report OF commissioners ana also put 10 evidence
report OF the opinion delivered by The Judge on
making that order.
Judge fullerton tncn applied for copy Of the
eVI1euce Oh MT 1elNeTtOH III rcAtOu W iuuRe tdi-
dozo's case aud Mr.. Stranan promised 10 let niiD
have II. .
Tue examination was then adjourned until nar
past seven.
The investigation was recommended ana con.
ciuued last evening. Inc hrst witness caiieu Wss
! George l.. Simonson counsenor-at-law, who was
\ examined IN reference TO the case OF corey vs -,
Long. He testified thar he received inc oiucr " "
Judge McCunn directing counsel rec 70 oe pau pro "
General Prior, ana that he gave the ORDER W .o,'y
! whom he accompanied to Dr. Gono, tue receiver va
Inc case, who paid the amount s spec"eaa hy Aired T.
presence to Prior An sfidavit made @ Dy ,nrei ae ~
t,orey now plaintiff In the suir was tneu one.e! Va
evidence and read 1t corrooorated slmons .lSocann
nhiacied 10 its being received as evdence, anu ~
Sx.s rejected by Mr. Stranan, but marked LOT ioen-
aemeyai PRIOR was recalled, aud ne declared that
n naT no apsOlute recollection regarding the mat
,nrs Insined 10 by the previous Witness ana AL ne
rnew was gathered from MS booK, wherein ne
snnus an entry OF $3.50 paid him by Corey.
'snarIes Rfuno, lawyer, was next examined as
10 MA retaining General Prior TO argue TO motion
i W prantpl hY ludu