The Portland daily press., 1872-10-26
NEW YORK.
TRIAL OF MAYOR HALL.
Developments Concerning
Ring viilainies-TestimOny Of Keyser,
Garvcy and Others.

Ring viliainies-Testimonye Of Keyser,
Carney and Others. +f-t-i
NEW YORK, Oct 25.-In the Hall trial to-day
Mr.. Copeland, who was a clerk in the County
Bureau, testified that he had seen the Mayors
name on the Garvy, Ingersoll and other vouch
ers, but did not see the Mayor write. The affi-
davit OF the aimant was not attached to the
vouchers. Some of the signatures of the May
or looked like forgeries Auditor Watson had
private room for consultation. Witness had
his suspicious awakened about the vouchers in
the summer of 1870. Didn't tell any one of his
suspicious as he had ne acquaintance with him.
Told O'Brien, who was my friend.
Auditor Earle testified to the genuinenesS of
the Mayors signature on the warrants, with
the exception of 1886 for Keyser, which was
doubtful.
An exhibit was here shown, showing that
Auditor Lyons had audited $25, 10000
John McDavidson testified to the payment of
one of his claims. An objection being made to
the question to witness as to the Mayors know
ing, the claim to be fraudulent Judge Brady
told the counsel for the prosecution that he had
better not refer to whatwas done on the first
trial. The counsel for the prosecution argued
that the character of the claim was known to
the Mayor. Witness stated that his bill was
for $16,9 $40, when he sent it to the Clerk of the
Board of Audit, and when he went to get pay
he found the bill raised to $4S,900, the warrant
for which the clerk or Auditor retained and the
witness got check for $16,940.
Mr. Keyser testified that he was told to make
ouj his bills for plumbing and the Auditor or
clerk directed him to add SO 1-3 per cent. which
he did in their presens, not verifying any of
the bills Witness nor any one for him, gave
no proof before the Board of Audit Cross-e1-
amined: The SO 1-3 per cent was not added to
some of the bills. Witness had to wait for his
and hence. considered himself justified in charg-
ing for the time he had lost Had been shown
bills for 5000 900, to which there were forged
endorsements of his name on warrants on which
he didn't get cent as it all went to swindlers
Twenty per cent of his bills were kept back by
didn't go before the board.
Andrew j. Garvey testified Son the 26th
of April, 1870, had claims against the County
of New York, and the bills made out were
paid. The three warrants handed to me were
paid on the endorsements and my endorsements
are all genuine. In April, Mr. Woodward, of
the Board of Supervisors, told me how much
was due me, and told as near as could. He
gave me instructions to make out the bills, and
l should have IS per cont. of the whole bill,
and Mr.. Watson after that told me that
should have my money if followed his instruc-
items and did so. The gross amount of the
bill was 1896, 900, of which l expected to get
back for work done and in progress $110, 800,
for court house decorations, 75, 900 for armories
and county offices, $50, 600 for county buildings
and $50, 900 cash advanced and said to be for
Mr.. Tweed.
Mr. Houghton objected to the testimony
about the $4,000, as not affecting the defend
ant.
Judge Brady-Isi it not material for what
purpose the additions to the bill were made,
and5which were not for work done? The Of
fence was constituted by the additions not fol-
work done, no matter for what purpose it may
be.
Mr.. Tremain said that he proposed to show
| thot tho dafondapt Than fba MT
ed asked if this was one of the bills in which
| Tr. Tweed was interested, and on being an
swered in the affirmative, signed it. lF
The Court decided to have the testimony
| Witness said that the $50, 900 was for Tweed
| in Albany, $4,000 was for work on the house
| and premises of E. A. Woodward, 100000 fol
| work on Tweed's premises at Greenwich, and
| 5000 for plastering two houses of Tweed's OF
oath street On these bills he received 50 pei
cent. Witness here identified number Of
checks which he had deposited in the banl
with Mr.. Woodward. On receiving the war
rants, other checks were deposited in the nam,
| Of Tweed.
Mr.. Peckham said in reply to the counsel TO
the defence that he proposed to show tina
Tweed received portion of the checks depos
tied by the Witness and to show that Mr.. Hal
was conscious of the fact. [Sensation in Court.
The witness also testified that after the
frauds were made public he met Mayor Hal
one day and told him he was afraid of bein
| sucu, anu Sdiu Is There any DANGER OF UnOS
folks suing us boys and tying up all our prop
erty?" and the Mayor replied, ''Who is goin
to do it." This was in the vestibuls of tn
CouIt House in 1869. The witness took all the
warrants to Mayor Hall. He did not know hov
much was to come out of them for MI Tweed
The Mayor asked him, "are these Mr.. Tweed
matters" and the witness said yes, AID tn
Mayor signed them.
Mr.. Heckham here proposed to show tina
from and prior to 1862 there was continuou
arrangement by which certain amount wa
deducted by Tweed and others from this man
bills. The witness testified that he paid Twee
15 per cent of of his bills at first. Mr.. Watso
told him to do as Mr.. Woodward told him, an
in order to get paid he had to do 50. Wood
ward gradually raised the amount to Is pc
cent He had little connection with Mayo
Hall. Subsequently the witness had warrau
for $40, 900 for work on reservoir and MI
Connolly said, "Why don't the Mayor sign th
warrant" Witness took it to the MAY or an
he said, 81 must do what am told, but wi
take it to Albany and have no doubt it is a
right. Witness was paid, but before it, a frien
of his sent him two pieces of silver, one froI
witness and one from himself, which Mayo
Hall acknowledged in note. The friend ws
Ingersoll and the idea originated with him, br
witness paid for his portion of the silver.
Mayor Hall-Do yoh recollect telling me o
Stuyvesant street that your bills were just?
Ans.-No, but it was not likely was goin
: to tell you they were unjust. Laughter.) tt
court then adjourned.