The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-09
MAYOR HALL.
nc Battery Of "Cbjectiuns" Resumes HOstili-
ties, but is Eventually 81
fenced BY the Court.
TIE CARNEY" BATTERY OPENS FIRE
The Great PlaSterer Tells All He Knows
About the Court House Frauds.
~-,~>,~>>,~~>~~>>~~~~~~~>~~
Tweed's Fifty Thousand Dollars to
Manipulate the Legislature.
Sixty Thousand Dollars for Plas-
tering Two Houses for
Walter Roche.
THE MAYORS POSITION STILL INTACT.
The Public Excitement on the Incrcasc---All-
drew ]. Nervous and III at Ease.
THE MAYORS POSITION STILL INTACT.
The Public Excitement on the Increase
drew ]. Nervous and iii ut Ease.
TENTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS.

me excitement caused by the unexpected ap-
pearance Of Andrew J. Garvey, the great pasterer,
the trial Of Mayor Hall, during Thursdays pro-
ceedings, is on the increase. Yesterday 1t
almost impossible to reach the doors of the court
room. so closely were they Desieged by solid mass
OF people anxious to force their way inside. 1t re-
quired oil the efforts of the Officers of the court
aided by the strong, massive doors, which, when
once closed, were sufncient to resist any pressure
brought to bear against them, to keep back the
sprging and impatient crowd. All having actual
business in the court room had 70 pass through the
clerks ofnces, and through the Judges door.
Every facility was rendered IN this direction, and
30 much inconvenience and delay was In this way
prevented. But one query and but one thought was
In the minds OF all
WHAT WILL CARNEY TESTIFY TO?
This was the all absorbing subject OF speculation
and was only secondary to the desire 10 get
glimpse Of the hero OF the hour himse. II was very
evident, however, that was not love for The great
plasterer personally that prompted oil this eoulli-
tOn Of popular feeling, but desire to see the man
whose name more than any others Is mixed up with
the Ring frauds in connection with the new County
Court House. and II POSSIBLE IS hear his develop
ments and TO learn which OF all the ex-chiefs OF
Tammany would be most damaged thereby. He
sat during the early part OF the proceedings beside
the reporters table, looking nervous and ANXIOUS,
yet apparently eager be again called 10 the stand.
THE COURT ROOM
was filed much earlier than usual. and the Chief
Justice, counsel, jury, and all professionally en-
gagged in the proceedings were promptly aJ hand.
the Mayor entered entered with his usual sang
noid and took his accustomed seat. The APP
partition OF Garvey on the previous day
didn't runie him in the slightest degree. and
all day yesterday he left the legal contest
han "a. Nf hi o1Ni
busylng himself apparently with taking notes OF The
arguments or counsel for the prosecution and OF
leading points In the testimony Of Garvey. An hour
or more was consumed by Mr.. StOughtOn for the
defence, presenting ana arguing
OBJECTIONS 10 THE INDICTMENT,
to the effect that unless Garvey's claim pro-
per liability against the city nd duty was imposed
by the statute The Mayer to audit; and hence,
under the indictment for neglect OF that duty, no
proof of its not being a liability was admissible,
especially since the Indictment did not state 1t a
..llablity'' but "calm," and tnat, II this was q
liability or the county's, then the Mayor did no
moral wrong-was not, in other WORDS, "wilfu" in
passing 1t without examination. This argument
Affects The Indictment itself, and, II sustained,
would quasn the Indictment
MR.. sroUGHToN's OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS
After the formal opening OF the Court, Mr.. Slough
ton resumed his argument OF the previous day. He
SAID that since the adjournment OF The Court he had
very carefully considered the view which he would
proceed to present, and in connection with this he
had collected two or three cases which he thought
illustrated their force. He had no intention to go
over the ground occupied yesterday, but he would
saw, in view OF the character Of the testimony At
tempted to De given here, the question becomes
very important to be considered and determined
here. For II, counsel for the defence confidently
presume that his testimony Is utterly inadmssible
We Will DE likely 20 save great deal or valuable
Of the case he Would in the rst place cali the
attention OF the Court to the first count on the In
dictment all that was charged there being
wlLFus. REFUSAL AND NEGLECT
TO audit claim said 10 have been presented on be-
hall OF Andrew j.. Garvey. There Is no suggestion
In that count from beginning to end. that does not
apply well 10 the second count There is no sug-
gestion averment that the claim thus refused 10
be audited Is an unjust or fraudulent claim, or that
we knew 1t to be- so or had any earthly reason TO
suspect 1t was so. No implication OF dishonest
motive is suggested by the Indictment so Tar as the
first count Is concerned. Now assuming this first
count 10 have been intended TO present the offence
under the statute OF wilrul refusal to audit, sup
posing there had been wlu neglect to audit, and
prpyen and Mayor Hall should here ofer as his ex.
cuse defence that the claim. or part OF 1t, thus
presented for audit was unjust would that be any
answer Whatever to the offence charged OF wilully
refusing or neglecting to audits Would not That
offence be complete irrespective Of the question
whether the whole bill was due or part fraudulent
or notS Is not the duty tharged and the duty I'm
posed-the duty to audit-to examine and to allow
~
And is not tnat duty disregarded when the Mayor
refuses, irrespective Il repeat the inquiry whether
again, suppose in TINS case we ofiered to snow that
under the nrst count oil the Indictment TINS claim
and, IN addition thereto and aside from that that
even supp0sng IL was county liability. II was IN
OF these propositions then, II was not claim which
the Mayor either was bound TO audit or had right
s 20 aaa WAS not ceay Sey but ey apy
or If we prove admitting tnat It was county ma
bity. that was incurred after the passage OF the
charged In the Indictment NOW, question has
arisen to what Is meant by ''ablllties incurred"
LIABILITIES INCURRED,
means the contracting by the county OF an Indebted
ness or Liability anteri to April 70, 1870. when
the goods were furnished or when me WORK was
performed, as suggested In the Indictment, the
liability was incurred. There, IS, therefore, NO
offence committed unless dne hap y Was as
the material was furnished or the work periormeu
then 1t was that the liability vas incurred witn mn
liability incurred must be one incurred prior to
April 26 and must be county Liability without out
Mayor or imposed upon HIM by the act to audit any
claim otherwise presented, these two Indispensable
conny liability prom ana that was incurred
prior to April Unnecessary TO constitute an
one secoa aGe coans IN IN ,he
charged that the Mayor, being bound 10 auul'
certain claim, dld then aud mere wiliul ca u,,,
or to examine into the validity and correctness OF
said claim. &C. Now the charge on the second
charged IN the FIRST count. Tney alcee that the
three persons named in the Indictment. including
the mayor, accepted the trust OF auditors and en-.
tered upon their duties. and 1t Is averred that on
me 6th OF June 1t became and was the duty OF said
Hail and the Others and each OF them, to audit and
IN auditing to examine into the validity and cor
rectness oil claim stated on certain paper pre-.
the county, and that the said Hail. as one OF sucn
auditors, neglected to audit such claim. The aver
men' SET Iorth mere has no greater force or value
aVcrment