The New York herald., 1873-12-20

was little popularity here, tat he signed II not
liarty was that on that very day the iron fur
nished by another party was being hauled TO the
Mr.. Beach here insisted that the o'Donnell con-
tract was for different classes OF iron
Mr. Peckham said there was little discrepancy
window guards,n in the other Il was window
frames - in the one, 'Iron Deams;' in the other,
There had been spent on this building several hun
drcd thousand dollars.
Mr. Waterbury here interrupted saying that all
the money passing through scallon's hands was
Mr.. Peckham, after brief inquiry or Mr.. Tain
count OF the Court House was secs 900, and there
were $40 600 OF bills still pending unpaid.
Mr. Waterbury insisted that this covered other
MONEYS than those coming TO Scalon.
Mr.. PecSham replied that he was speaking from
Mr.. Scallons evidence. Quite possibly that was
hut they would notice that. according to Mr..
Genet, he carried this large amount OF bills, when
other proof was that he got the amount in July
ana offered 1t TO Mr.. Davidson In september,
and then ne made formal tender to oar q man with
he have done then The easiest thing was to
take the warrant back. Then there would be
receipt for 1t ana record OF It. Then, If
other iron was needed, a new warrant to
other parties could have been drawn in its
place. but Mr. Genet aid not 40 this; Win iron
this money to Scallon. Scallon said he then or
dered the iron from oDonnell 4 Dimond; but 1t
q month before the money was drawn and three
weeks before the warrant was issued: but there
of the mountaineering but the bare, naked as
severation He could not tell Il place where he
got the large bills changed to pay the. men. Did
ticy believe that if they had carried about $4,000
in large bills and then been forced to change
them, would they remember so little about it
the men was an after thought. He was not liable
TO the men. lie simply approved the pay rolls,
and sent them to the Comptroller. They remain
IN fha Ttn
the city. 1t would be no defence to the city in an
acton by the workmen for their pay that &r Seal,
never received credit for this money. He did not
point out one man or one weeks wages paid by it,
and not memorandum, except, possibly some
tion to the fact that immediately on the
defeat OF the. the young democracy the m blll
Gene. WAS connse to S
sioners-a useless Office. His friends and relatives
were appointed on it; sss,ooo passed through his
10 whom he paid it, except MIR scallon, one scrap
sum- There was an explanation OF this, he
thought. The fact was that, at this time, Mr.
Genets house was going up at !ils same time. II
had gone up to completion, while the Court House
had barely got over the foundation. Scallon was
the man wno had the payment for both. Mr.. Genet
knew nothing about the house; he only paid Mr.
Scalon. They had one letlc ltem-Mliler 4 Co.'s
bill for black walnut ana lumber. Mr.. Genet got
that warrant, and. curiously, the black walnut
Genet told them he told scallon that was wrong
and paid the price to scallon-not, let them notice.
TO the city.
Mr. Peckhanl, in conclusion, spoke OF his own
position in the case The District Attorney was
Sny prevsnlea from being present BY sickness
defendant but from ms duty as an officer OF the
law. He closed by appealing to the jury while
taking fully into account the Importance OF ver-
dict or conviction TO the prisoner and his family
ana friends, to remember the still greater impor-
Criminals % Especially criminal ociaIs. The ae'ae. de-
fendaGt, 1t was true, was not technically an otii-
cIa, but was more. The public would watch care
fully their action upon the evidence which was be.
lore that public as well as before them.
CHARGE TO THE JURY.
As soon as Mir. Peckham had concluded Judge
Daniels proceeded to cnarge the jury, standing as
he spoke, and the jury also standing After stat
ing the substance OF the Indictment he charged
tions were made to the authorities and the Mayor
with intent to cheat and deiraud, and that their
influence procured the signature. The statute
that there were two classes OF cases
one where the crime was by false tokens or writ
lie did not think this came within the irst class,
but this bin might be considered as false repre-
testimony that In May or June. 1871, the defendant
IN consequence OF some previous considerations,
applied 10 Mr.. Davidson for work and ma terials for
Harlem Court House. 1t was important to inquire
whether there was then dawning intention not
for his own friend. lie called their attention to
the bill Itself, in which months are mentioned
and IN which there is charge for carriage. Mr..
Davidson testified there had been no nievious
dealings between him aud the Commissioners, but
this was the first dealing the instance OF the de-
iendant. The form OF the bill was important for
their consideration. Mr.. Davidson told them that
he could not recall precisely what occurred, but
that this was made out in this form at the sugges-
tion oil the defendant The defendant denied this
and denied that he suggested the putting on or
the months, as indicating thar the goods had been
furnished, the men TO judge which told the truth.
lie knew nothing In this case going to dlscredlt
Mr.. Dayidson's testimony. II he had no motive to
misrepresent the transaction it was Tor
made. 1t was an important circumstance in
considering the intent. In the contradictions
between him and Mr.. Genet, they would remember
the urgent and cogent reasons leading the latter
color the circumstances SO as TO excuipate him. II
instance OF the defendant, the question arose,
Why was II so? Was IT to be ready to pay Ior
goods for the city or was It for the purpose of
enabling him TO misappropriate moneys for the citys
II the latter, then the question was whether
this intent followed the bill till 1t came before the
Mayor Mr.. Genet took away the bill, and they
heard no more Of 1t till it got into Mr. Corson's
hands, the secretary OF this Board or Commission
ers. The bill was before the Commissioners or the
Court House, and bears their signature. Ii also
bears the endorsement OF Mr. Scallon, Superintend.
ent of the Court House ana or the DEFENDANTS
house, and IL was question for them whether he
,ent himsen ior any improper purpose, and
how far that would AFFECT his credit. II would ap-
pear that this bill was Intended to go before the
authorities to persuade them that these goods had
been furnished, and thus procure credit or war
rant to Mr.. Davidson. Direct evidence was not
needed In such cases In this case the circum-
stances warranted the conclusion that this bill
when put into Mr. C0rson's hands was intended to
take the course It did take. II was an important
circumstance for the defendant whether
his connection with the bill ceased then,
or whether, by any directions or acts
he forwarded 1t on its course to consummaton.
Unless Mr.. Corson himself were placed on the
stand there could be no direct proof of what did
occur in this respect But II the defendant knew
this person and did not call him, then 1t was
for them 10 consider what effect his failure TO
CAL him had or II tho prosecution knew the
facts, and Jailed 10 call HIM. they would give
due weight TO that omission. But In his
absence 1t was for them to determine from
uoson Sand ntendna sat Sa x
the Mayor, and that he should get the warrant.
All the circumstances were to be considered In
this connection. The certificate attached 10 the
bill stated that the goods had been delivered He
recalled the testimony OF the officers that, ac-
cordlng 10 the course OF business, the bill was a
necessary part OF the voucher and the ordinary
course OF business In the Comptroer's Office and
especially the AUDITORS testimony that he would
not have audited the claim without the
.lI