The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-06

Examination Of Witnesses In Behalf Of the Com
plaint-The Case Assuming . Tangible
Shape-A wharAnger on the Stand.


Captain Of the Port On the assembling OF the
Court Mr.. Benedict, the counsel for the complain
ants, called Mr.. william G. Mainland, the witness
who was under examination when the Court ad-
j0urned on the Goth ult.
On taking the stand the witness requested to be
allowed to make the following statement:-"Mr.
Davis counsel Tor the defendant, asked me last
Friday II 1t would not make q difference In the
charge II the warehouseman gave ms personal
supervision to the removal OF goods from the
wharf. / did not at the time quite
understand the question, 80 wish, In explanation,
now to state that such course would be unusual,
as mercantile lines ana dock Keepers generally do
that themselves II was requested 10 do 1t
should, OF course Try TO make something out of It.
Mr. DAvIs-would you, then, charge more II you
gave your personal superintendent to the removal
OF goods from the DOCK and storageP
WITNEss-I would charge them the regular rate
and get IT done under the rate; that's where make
my profit
Mr.. DAvrs-In the charges which you have sworn
to as being usual was the work done under the
regular ratesf
WITNESS.
Mr.. DAvIs-Can you get work done under the reg
ular ratess
WTTNEss-Carlage can, generally;
SOMETIMES PAY REGULAR RATES
for carriage. but my reason lor SO doing is my own
business.
BY Mr.. Benedict-If was called upon TO give per-
sonal attention to the removal oil -four from the
dock should not charge extra for storage.
BY Mr.. Davis-l never did give personal attention
to the removal q -four from the dock.
BY Captain OF the Port--I never knew OF an in
stance where q warehOuseman personally superin-
tended the removal OF -four from dock; can get
work done at under rates By employing men who
are not regularly employed by any nrm; rather than
be idle such men VIII work under rates pro te'n
but tney would not undertake steady work at the
same rate; take advantage OF that fact to make
my money out OF carriage.
Mr. DAvIS-Why would you be more apt to en-
plOy those cartmen IN case where you gave Der
sonal superintendent to the removal Of goods than
WITNEss-Having answered that question once
refuse to do SO again.
on fOurP
ENTHUSIASTICALLY about five cents per barrel.
Mr.. DAvIs-Is there any regular rate
WITNESS-That seems 10 be the customary rate;
never pay more Tor that distancc-lrOm my store 10
William K. MYERS sworn, stated:-I am q wharf
niger. and business at A. Front street; nave had
charge Of piers NOS and East Kye I sor rs sre
TOrrybOrne was removed from pier No. In Decem.
Der ast before she arrived tne berth mad been an.
after she was removed two briggs succeeded her; at
the time she was removed Two vessels org ana Q
was not on the dock at the time OF the barKs re-
By MIR. Davis-I don't know whether Hart was ap-
piled to tor berth for the rorryborne about wear
ago heard Hart say that II Q vessel wished TO berth
In that (the canall district, he shOUd be
APPLIED TO PERSONALLY
for 1t; do not know whether Hart, at the time the
TOrryborne was removed, had assigned the berth to
any other vessel had no instructions from the
captain Of the port or Mr. Davis. TO allow vessels "
by Mr. Benedict-I remember the fact OF some
nour being removed from pier No. D. IN July last;
structed either in July or december sutiicently to
necessitaIe the removal Of hour.
;, by Mr.. Davis-I don't know whether saw the
November lot OF -four on the per- so cannot tell now
long 1t lana there; nave requested Captain Hart to
have cnarge perhaps, three times; some years ago;
! TO the best OF my recollection, never applied TO
| him TO remove any OF the nour OF E. w. Coleman
Co. from any pier over winch I have charge;
would have had Coleman's nour removed II IT was
encumbering the DOCK the same as any one elsesi
! might nave sked Hart 10 remove COleman's pro-
perty, not knowing TO whom It belonged
! William Lloyd, Sworn:-Stated that he did bts1-
ness al No. 81 Coenlies slip; remembered Coleman's
hour being removed to GARDENERS store; there was
at
time ON the upper SIDE Of the pier, NO. D: did not
know Gardners stores or Sne6aer Hart naa an M
removed from the pier to Gardiner stores by art's
| BY MIR. Davis-Have known nour TO remain three
| weeks on that dock; don't know whether applica-
ZION was made to Hart TO allow the flour III question
to remain; have never had
PERSONAL DIFFICULTY
| with Hart, but have had business disagreement;
| no hard words have ever passed between mart and
| myself; when state that there was no reason for
removing The four mean that there was room on
| the pier Tor thousands or barrels 5000 barrels OF
-four might be upon the pier and not ODstruct busl-
ness; besides the hour there was upon the pier al
don't know how many barrels OF -four were there
mad little merchandise upon the pier cannot state
! on the pier; otner barrels were there; remember
Coleman's l0ur, but cannot be positive az 10 the
property OF sell; think that few barrels OF pain,
or merchandise consigned to me were there; can
swear exactly what had there without referriTR to
s ssSe sy BEEN SSe
by any one to notice par,lculary tna condition q
| know whether any vessel had Applied for q berth
at the pier where That -four was lying,
for the purpose OF receiving or dlschafging
came there, from the fact that COleman's
barge occupied the berth for about three weeks;
allowed to come there; tine boat from which the
nour had been discharged in November still lay
days alter COlemans lot OF cargo had been landed;
think 1t was Captain Woods boat; Will not swear
Se peT un
cargo was stored; cannot say whether o canal
ooat TOOK that place directly after the aou was DIS.
! BY Mr.. Benedict-It was
BY SPECIAL AGREEMENT
that the -four refer to as having been three weeks
| on the pier was allowed To remain; have known
! two or three thousand barrels to De on the pier
without interfering with business; pier No. O. at the
| time IN question, was not encumbered-there was
| plenty OF room upon It; | never saw that pier so
| pier half way up, was entirely unoccuped at the
time The flour removed; most OF the boats that
come In at that season are q ain boats; they dis.
charge into vessels aud only lie there for orders
| BY Mr. Davis-lt was by special agreement that
some flour lay three weeks on the pier; Mr.. Bald
WIN, who attends to Coleman & Co.'s flour, and my
self were the parties to this agreement we had an
understanding that the flour should remain on the
dock until 1t was sold; agreed to let IL remain; It
was In my possession; was
NOT PAID ANYTHING
for permitting It to remain; when I swore that
had seen 1900 barrels OF flour the pier without
incommodIng business l referred to my own mer-
chandise and that Of others.
after lew moro questions OF out trivial import
mad been put to and answered py the witness Lloyd.
Captain Jones adjourned the Court until half.past
ten O'Clock A. M. to-day.