The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-05
MAYOR HALL.
commencement Of Earnest
Proceedings.
ORGANIZATION Of THE BOARD OF AUDIT.
>~~~~~~~~>~~-~~~~>~~--
How the Finances of the City
Were Disposed Of.
THE STOLEN VOUCHERS
ORGANIZATION Of THE BOARD OF AUDIT.
THE STOLEN VOUCHERS
Deputy Comptroller Storrs on
the Stand.
SIXTH DAY OF THE TRIAL

SIXTH DAY OF THE TRIAL.
After four days spent In swearing IN jury In the
matter OF the People or the state Of New York vs..
Mayor Hall and one day spent by counsel Tor the
prosecution in opening the case, 1t was with feel
ing OF relief and anticipation that something OF in
terest would succeed that the audience at the first
opening Of the proceedings yesterday heard the
| burly Deputy Comptroller called to the stand.
Counsel on both sides were early IN their Places
| and busted themselves, before the arrival of the
| CHIEF Justice, with peering into the contents Of
| huge bundles Of legal documents ana chatting
| among themselves.
| THE ATTENDANCE
was not over numerous, the apartment OF the Com
mon Pleas being only comfortably filed. The Ut
most quietude prevailed throughout the progress Of
the proceedings, no interruption by outsiders, by
way Of applause otherwise, occurring disturb
the dignifed equanimisy OF the legal gentlemen
Inc Mayor appeared bright and placid, ana con-
versed with Mr. Peckham, the opposing counsel, IN
way that the sensation mongers despised.
AT eleven O'Clock Chief Justice Daily took his seat
the bench, when the Crier OF the Court of Com
mon pleas opened and adjourned that tribunal till
Monday next. The CrIer OF the General Sessions
then formally opened that branch of the Judiciary
TESTIMONY FOR THE PROSECUTION.
Richard A. Storrs, sworn and examined by the
Mr.. Peekham-Am Assistant Comptroller. and have
been such In the COmptrOller's Office since 1867;
have been Deputy Comptroller from 1854 to Septenl-
Der last.
q. Have you searched in your office for any papers
relating to the Board OF Audit Of 1902
Mr.. Burrill objected, on the ground, first, that 1t
was not in the order OF proof as observed in criml
nal cases. and, IN the second place, that 1t assumes
the existence Of Board Of Audit which has not
peen proven, or any connection proven between the
MI Peckham SAID he wanted to prove the exist
that view the Court held it was proper uu' Anu VI
Wltness-I caused search to be made in the
Comptrollers oftlCe, and this paper now in my hand
was given to me by Mr.. Connolly, who was then
Comptroller; this was last summer; the body of
this paper Is in the handwriting Of the Mayor and
Tweed and Richard B. Connolly.
Paper handed In.
Mr.. Burrin objected, but was overruled by the
Court, who granted an exception, as to reserve
the right TO the defence to move to strike out all the
evidence ON account OF its irreevancy and lmma-
MI. Feckham then read the paper. 1t was a reso.
up p Ss the Re GS ans
appropriate committees OF the Supervisors. to be
paid on SIGNATURE OF the clerk OF the committee or
Q; Do You know Of any meeting Of the Board Of
Objected to- on the ground that 1t has no, been
| proved that the witness had such means OF knowl-
edge officially Of the meeting OF the Board US TO
! enable him to state the fact.
BY the Court-Have you any general knowledge OF
| any meeting OF the Commission referred to IN this
| paper or OF the gentlemen composing ttf A. L have
BY Mr.. Peckham-Do you know Of any record In
the 0omptrOller's office having any reference what
ever to the meetings or business OF that Commls-
sion A. No; search was made In the Office OF
the Comptroller for such II it existed but none was
Q. Was there any account found there OF any
claims purpOrting to be audited by that Board or
| Commission and paid by the Comptroller
Mr.. Burrill again objected 10 the evidence as no
nad YET Geen ras sa l9r @ a on
Comptroller could be binding upon the defendants.
| This. Board OF Audit, of which he was a member,
was not q component part OF, or IN any way con-
nected with, the Finance Department OF the city
| government with the Comptroler nor had the
gentleman holding that office any such jurisdiction
over 1.-The Board Of Audit or connection with 1t as
authorised HIM to bind the members OF that Board
| by any record he might think proper to draw up.
And any record, or account, book, Kept there or
found there, OF claims purpOrting to have been aud
| no evidence whatever against the defendant. In
1870 account was kept called the county abill-
ties, which represented the payments made on this
The latter part OF the answer was stricken out.
| on the motion of Mr.. Burrill.
q. Were there any vouchers OF claims purportlng
TO have been acted upon by this Commission and Tor
which warrants had oeen drawn and paid In cx.
istence In the Office OF the ComptrollerS
Mr.. Burrill-This question Is irrelevant, as the
witness has no knowledge OF the contents OF the
Mr.. StorrsL knew OF package Of papers repre-
senting the county Liabilities which was kept in
the County Auditors office.
@. What package OF papers or vouchers were
these, and what do you know about thems
Objected TO and excluded.
O. DO you know OF anything that occurred In the
Comptroller's ONCE In reference to these vouchers
about the 18th septemberY A. Yes they were
stolen from the ONCE; they have not been recovered
slnce am not able TO state the number OF vouch-
ers that stolen; the COmptrO was ap-
prised Of the theft OF the vouchers as pos
sible AFTER he acquainted me, and went at once
to the ONCE; the pigeon holes where these
| outer door had been forced and portions or the
| glass broken; the Comptroller, the Auditor and
| some otner gentlemen connected with the office
| were present; MI. Lyons has been Co-Audor since
| the death OF watson.
Y. Al the time these vouchers were stolen or dis
| appeared was there any examination geing on at
| the Comptr0ller's ONCE in that connecticut
Objected to and excluded as irrelevant.
z. We're there any papers found there which had
reference 10 the action OF the Board OF Audit or
CommissiOnY
OBJECTED to and waived.
O. DO you know that the vouchers which were
stolen mad any reference to claims acted upon by
the Board OF AudtY A. Yes; those were the vOuch-
ers that were stolen.
O. Were the vouchers which were stolen the
Mr. Burrill objected. The existence and contents
OF those papers or vouchers had not yet been
proved. Knowing full We'll that the paper wassbe-
You'd their reach and control without any IaulJ OF
theirs, any general evidence OF the contents OF those
papers, as now offered Is not competent, and Its
admission would be detrimental to the legal rights
OF the defendant
q. Prior 10 the robbery OF those vouchers did you
know OF the existence VI those vouchers OF claims OF
A. j. Garveyf A. Yes Tor subsequently 10 the rob-
berry knew OF more; made search, not spe-
ci6c search for these particular papers; give my
| statements OF what know from what have been
| told by the officers In charge Of that bureau
CROSS-EXAMiNED.
BY Mr.. Burrill-I had no connection OF any kind
with the Commission or Audit; the vouchers that