The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-26
YORK HERALD WEDNESDAY JUNE g. 872-TRPLE SHEET.

the meantime Bininger was attending to che busi-
ness, and our families were intimate until 1869,
when the intimacy ceased. witness. was shown
several papers executed on the night OF the APP
pointment of the receiver, but he c. ,ud not rec0g
The Senate then took q recess eil eight IN.
Evcning sesdon.
On reassembiiDE the pay Of witnesses was fixed
The cross-exammation of Clark by Mr. Develin
was resumed. His testimony follows:-
Sdvse as %y ihr ON to
Of his having influence with the Sheriff; did
not know that Judge vanderpoel was counsel for
the Sheriff, and that Judge McCunn's object was
that the Sheriff should be posted as to mis- rights in
the case as he had possession Of portion Of the
property and the United States authorities had
another portion under action OF the Court OF Bank
ruptcy. Judge McCunn told me he would order
AN ALLOWANCE OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS
to Compton with the understanding that 5000
should go to my father; don't know any reason
for the Judge proposing to do this except through
Kindness to my father; don't remember what Comp
ton said when told him OF this proposition made
by Judge McCunn.
Senator Madden rose to say that to him this cross
examination appeared trivial and irrelevant.
Mr. Deyelin replied that IL the Senator would ex-
change places with him and promise to DO fnll JUS
him. II not, he would be obliged to proceed as he
best knew how.
Senator Madden thought a great deal OF time was
wasted to which he thought 1t was his duty to OBJ
ject
questions, and then Mr. Parsons asked some ques-
tons concerning the proposition for settlement, to
which he was unable to reply.
Witness said since the recess was taken he had
come to the conclusion that this paper was the one
drawn up by Titus and which was agreed to by
al parties before Judge McCunn made his PROPOSE
ton.
In answer to Mr.. Devclin the witness said he had
had conversation with Titus on the subject since
JOEL STEVENS ON THE STAND.
Joel Q. Stevens was next called, sworn and ex-
amlned by Mr. Stlckney OF the counsel lor the
prosecution. He testifed-I am the Under-SheriF;
have heard OF the suit of Clark vs. Bininger saw
Judge McCunn at the Shern7s ONCE at about that
time: he was there concerning orderin the case.
The witness was shown paper, which, he said,
was a copy of an order he refused to execute, and
counsel proposed to put 1t In as evidence. The
counsel for the respondent objected and the OBJ
lection was overrulod by the Senate. The order
Sheriff to take possession OF the property and hold
1t against the action of the United States author
ties, who were also about to take possession. Only
one or two unimportant questions were asked this
witness In cross-eXamination.
MANSFIELD COMPTON WAS SWORN
and examined by Mr.. Stickney. Was counsel for
Clark; went to Judge McCunn's house at mid
night, November 49, 1859, to have him issue an
Injunction and appoint receiver; Immediately on
the incoming of the 10th presented my papers and
asked for the appointment of Hanrahan as receivers
am not certain whether the receiver was appointed
the witness as being similar but not the original
copy
which the witness could not recognize an origi-
nal document, but which ne supposed to be copy
Dub J0e senate OVerrueu the ODJeCUlOn anu tne pa
per was received in evidence.
Mr.. Stckney asked the witness what converse
tion he had with Hanrahan prior TO the applica-
ton to Judge McCunn to appoint a receiver. (Ob
jected to by respondents counsel and the objection
Overrued by the Senate)
The witness stated that he went to Hanrahan's
oiice, and, being an old acquaintance OF HIS told
him that he had case for receiver to be ap-
pointed; Hanrahan told him to apply to the Superior
Court and Judge McCunn would appoint him
(Hanrahan) did not know that McCunn had desk
in the office Of Hanrahan 4 Morgan.
hn nrsn iCcn NV uhn
Fithan laying an injunction on the action of Han
rahan as receiver, and recognized it. This put
In evidence. Counsel produced O letter writ
ten by Hanrahan to witness informing him
that Judge McCunn had modified Judge
meet McCunn at his (Hanrahan's) once
Witness identified it, and respondents counsel OBJ
jected to Its being introduced as evidence but the
objection was overruled by the Senate. Witness
said Judge McCunn had said he would make an Or
der for an allowance to him, but never said
anything about protecting his client, Clark;
when applied to McCunn did SO be.
did not know where McCunn lived; Hanrahan
promised me half Of his commission also II he was
appointed, and thought Judge Fithian would not
appoint him If went to him, SO was anxious to
have Hanrahan appointed.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Seden-Knew Hanrahan
In California; knew him to be good business man
and was anxious to have him appointed. (The
! Judge McCunn appointing receiver, SUBJ
mitted to Witness identified and put In evldence
| In the matter OF the collision between the State
and federal Courts, witness said IL decided
finally that the proceedings instituted in the State
Courts had precedence; allowance was ever
granted to me by Judge McCunn under the code
would be entitled to $4,000 and L may have said
to young Clark that If got 1t would divide with
hls father, but have no recollection OF It,
The Senate then adjourned till nine A. NJ. to-
morrow.