The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-29

lateral question and prove, that he made the
af1davts, how could stop and prevent him nom
mans testimony he did not9 This sort of evidence
is excluded by law. in my Judgment. l might be
mistaken. and ii am, you have the benefit Of your
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH B. Young.
Joseph B. Young, Clerk Of the Board Of Super.
vlsOrs, was handed paper, and asked II on that
date in 1867 Carney took oath before him. (Ex-
cluded).
visors on she Attn OF July, 1870, organized. tQues-
Witness I reccected the organization of the Board
troIIer and Board OF Aldermen constituted the
Board OF Supervisors since then; the defendant
ganizatiOn Of the new Board defendant has not
acted. t . ~. .
CHARLES D. M'cLHNNIGAE.
was employed in the Department OF Public Works,
and knew the defendant as q Commissioner.
O. what were his dutiesf
Judge Davis--What is that for
Mr. Burril.To show how actively ne was en-
Mr.. Tremain-Wnatever his duties were he ought
70 perform them faithfully. 1t 10 no excuse for him
Mr.. Field said they wanted to show that the de-
PENDANT could be indicted for neglect OF duty IS
Commissioner Of Public Works as well as Auditor;
that ne was bound to sign his name three or four
hundred times Q day In the Public Works offiee,
on him, the Legislature did not mean to hold that
~ Auditor ne should 60 to the bottom OF every
TX,
Judge Davis said defendant had the best protec-
ton OF any overworked oficer; he could resign:
yga q r. excuse sn fSr man holding several SaS
20 much TO attend to- 's'. 20" - -
MI. BurrllEEe could discharge the duties Of his
ONCE az supervisor two months before ne was
Durdened with the duties OF auditing under the
new act. Isn't 1t reasonable to say that the Legs
lature took into consideration the duties he
tonal duties on MIN, as the Court CONSTITUTES the
actP And this we offer to prove for the purpose OF
claims were required OF him by the act Of 1870 he
simply could not discharge In the way they claim
psv S the tSe ae sW
den0unces. But there was no excuse for neglect
Mr.. Burrill formally offered to prove by Mr.:
Public Works, had to sign documents vouchers,
&c, on department., three hundred to five hundred
day and that therefore T. was utterly impossible
fore the Board OF Audit Excluded.
The defence now offered to prove that defendant
took NO oatn g AUDITOR but the ordinary oath OF
The defence next onered to prove that the other
members Of the Board Of Audit were the chief
ing that the defendant II he did what was claimed,
relied upon the integrity and ability Of his asso-
Two indictments against Andrew J. Garvey OF
February, 1872 were offered in evidence by the
Judge Davis said the indictments were incom.
petent, but he would allow counsel to argue to the
jury, or he would charge the jury that II the facts
alleged Dy The people were true, every one u INC
parties indicted were liable to imprisonment for
WILLIAM p. COPELAND rEsrlFrEs FOR TIE DEFENCE.
The witness william +. Copeland, who testified
for the people in the Hall trial. and against Mr..
Tweed, was called for the defence, and was exam
ined by Mr.. Burrlll.
Counsel read over the cross-examination Of the
Witness ct his last appearance on the stand as to
the place where the vouchers were kept, how he
and sometimes they would come back all jumbled
up and detached.
In reply to questions Of counsel he further test-
fed on this occasion that when vouchers came in
no entry was made, but the voucher was filed
away; while Mr.. watson was in the office witness
would take out vouchers and hand them to Garvey
ingersoll or Keyser, at their request and without
specific directions from Mr.. Watson; sometimes
70 Watson himself; then Garvey or whoever got
the voucher would go with Watson into his room;
1t would be nothing for them to come and ask for
their vouchers, for they were always in the room
TghsS :n At o
the inner room to watson, and on these occasions
Garvey closed the door; thinks he would miss the
vouchers II they did not come back.
WERE THE VOUCHERS ALL KRTURNEDf
9. DID you ever miss e Of the papers rom the
vouchers A. The certificates and the Comptrol.
when they came back; In nearly every case when
l gave the vouchers to Watson, or Garvey, or
Ingersoll the COmptrOller's order was not on them
when they came back--if ever they did come.
ERASURES NOTICED.
Q. Did you ever notice anything like erasures on
the papers A. noticed erasures on the certia-
o. On whose vouchers9 A. On Garvey's and In
gersoll's and others think; sometimes l couldn't
positively say that 1t was an erasure which
noticed; but was watching the thing closely that
AND e. ns IN sse
lsr's ONCE A. Hardly a day but he was there.
Q. With whom did he do business A. With
Q. with anybody else A. No, sir.
O. DID you ever see Garvey get voucher from
TWEED NOT MIXED UP.
O. How many would you say you saw watson
hand him9 A. good many; couldn't say.
O. When the warrants were got where were the
vOuchersY A. watson had charge OF them in the
safe until the warrants were got out.
Dd you see Gasvey get warrants rom watson on
would sign his name to the bottom of the receipt
and 90 away.
the other oaices A. ! never did,
Q. Did you ever give Mr.: Tweed q voucher or
have anything to do with him at ALI A. never
did.
WHO HAD THE BIGGEST BILLS.
The witness next described the vouchers here
made up, consisting of different bills; about .
Ingersols were the biggest; but, II there was any
difference, Garveys were the biggest OF ali.
Crcss-examined by Mr.. Peckham-I left the
Comptroller's Office because my services weren't
wanted l took copies OF the books while was
spoke OF vouchers filed away referred to vouchers
for all kinds of county liabilities; Carney, 1nger-
soil, Keyser and the rest had not many other kinds
under the head Of adjusted Claims" just before
these companies liabilities accounts were opened
they were all fled there-a big lot OF them-and I
took an account OF these, too; the copies which
gave the newspapers were taken from the books.
Q. For what purpose did you look at the vouch.
ersS A. They came to me In q loose manner
sometimes and looked at them to see what they
contained; generally opened the vouchers.
@. Did you not tell me within this week that you
never opened them except when some accident OF
the kind happened A. Nei told you ! didn't
see them all, for all OF them weren't there the
record OF vouchers; the account was not written
up on the audit book sometimes for Q week after
the entry on the record books when opened the
bills saw Mr.. Tweed's name across great many
Of them saw the signatures OF the Board Of Audit
at the same time on all the vouchers which opened
Of Garvey and Ingersoll; Watson, Mr.. Lynes, and
pretty nearly every one In the ONCE had access to
the vouchers; when they got voucher from me
| they might hand them back to somebody else.
WHY HE TEsTIPIEs.
l noticed what might be called ensures on q
couple Of the certificates; Mr.. Burr knew Of this,
because the other day, after came down from the