The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-01
THE SPRING VALLEY DISTILLERY
CASE.

Trial OF Simon DOMAIN and Christopher
FloOd-Ope ming Of tho Case for the
Prosecution.
Yesterday, In the United States Circuit Court be-
fore Judge Benedict and a jury Simon DOMAIN and
Christopher Flood were put upon their trial on an
indictment charging them with having. at Spring
Valley, In Rockland county conspired to defraud
the government: out OF the tax on 5000 gallons OF
distilled spirits. MIR. Bliss, United States District
Attorney. and Mr.. A. 81. Purdy appeared for the
prosecution on behalf OF the government. Mr.. b.
r. Tracey and Mr. Thomas Harland acted as counsel
for the defendants.
From the statement Of the District Attorney In
opening the case to the jury, 1t appeared that
DOMAIN and Flood had been indicted for conspiring
In the manner above stated and for the object al
luded to. 1t was case arising under the Internal
Revenue law. Donan was one or the proprietors
Of the distillcry at Spring Valley. and Flood was
the government inspector at that place, known as
Newman's station, on the line OF the Erie Railway.
DOMAIN, said the District Attorney, was well known
In connection with whiskey irauds-a man
fraud During the s PRESENT term 'as' this
straw bail fof Flood; and three other men who I'M
dertook to give similar bail for DOMAIN were to be
sea cs snst esnGe Tooa was the yer %
would snow that no had been bribed by Mr.. Donan
and his associates. The dtsttliery was owned by .
Mr.. Brown, who leased " to Marcus Newman and
others. subsequently that lease was assigned to
Marcus Newman alone. He was the lessee of the
distilery, carrying on che business. In accordance
with the law he gave notice to the Assessor Of In
ternal Revenue that he claimed to open distil-
s ana e os SIGN lpoa Ge PREMISES
that OF Marcus Newman. 1t would be shown
that during that time Donan was partner with
Newman, receiving two thirds OF the profits of the
business. DoDan as the District Attorney alleged,
was not only q concealed partner In the concern,
business, giving directions. The faud was faciii-
tated by another little arrangement. The distil-
Erie Railway, and one Of the parties tDonan) who
was acting at the same time as agent for the Erie
70
carried quantities OF grain for the purpose of dis
tiation and also the proceeds OF dlstatien, in
fraud of the government. That track was not used
for any purpose except the transportation Of articles
to and rom the distery. Besides this the parties
attended. The distillcry was supposed not to be
running then, but IL was run during ''the suspen-
was removed, and, OIL course that could not be
done unless there was gross negligence or bribery
on the part Of the government olilcer II would
be shown that the government officer was bribed,
and that Donan anu his associates were direct par
ties to the bribery. The dstilery was run during
were manufactured This would be proved by
workmen who had been employed In the distillery.
While the establishment establish was thus being con-
viding themselves with large quantities of grain
received by them at the distlllery during the
period Of suspension" and that though this grain
was consumed 1t was not entered on the distlery
books. Porty-tnree barrels OF whskey were shipped
In violation Of the laws for instead OF the whiskey
being taken from the ciatern to the dstillery
house 1t was removed from the cistern to the
coopers shop and put In barrels there with rec.
tifer's and not regular dstillery stamps upon IT,
This was done with the connivance Of the govern
ment gauger. From the further statement OF the
District Attorney 1t would seem, II his allegations
be supported by evidence, that there Is hardly a
clause OF the informal Revenue law which has not
been violated by the defendants.
The defendants have pleaded not guilty, and
strenuously deny the charge that has been made
against them.
After some documentary evidence had been put in
Mr.. b. I. Tracey. OF counsel fer defendant, made
O heightened criticism upon the Indictment. charg-
ing that 1t was bad, and that 1t alleged no overt
act upon which evidence could be given In support
Of the general charge OF conspiracy.
Mr.. A. II. Purdy having replied, Judge Benedict
allowed the trial to proceed, reserving any legal
questions that might arise to future occasion.
Testimony was then given for the prosecution.
The case had not concluded at the rising Of the
Court and will be resumed to-day.