The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-17

were before him the vouchers ana certihcates OF
audit.
In answer to question by Mr.. Field, Mr.. Peck
ham stated that the questions in reference to these
ask in reference to the remaining warrants singly
and the defence waived their objection and con-
Covering q the whole Of the warrants. 'a' '' &c
Mr.. Peckham next exhibited thirty.four other
warrants drawn IN favor OLA J. Garvey, and put
the same general questions, which
Mr.. Field temporarily interrupted by asking
whether Mr.. Tweed's name appeared upon any OF
these warrants.
Reply was made that 1t did not.
MI. Peckham then offered
THE WARRANTS IN EVIDENCE.
Mr.. Field and Mr.. Burri both objected to the
offer, and Mr.. Burrill asked whether they were
onered as primary or secondary evidence.
MI. Peckham said they offered the warrants both
as primary evidence and as secondary evidence.
First, as evidence OF payment and second, as evil
dence OF the contents OF the lost vouchers.
The defence then objected to their admission on
both the grounds stated, and counsel asked II they
were offered as evidence that Tweeds name was
He asked this merely because they desired to
avoid 9h c pleading ~, surprise, at later stage
whether they could make Tweed responsible for
what Mayor Hail and Comptroller Connolly did
not allege any combination None could be proved
where none was averred. After he signed that
certificate of audit he had further control over
it, and il Mr.. Hall or Mr.. Connolly knew that
THESE VOUCHERS WERE MERE BLINDS
and were to be used as such, to cover the drawing
OF the money they stole the public money; IT was
nothing less than robbery and their stealing OF the
public money was no evidence against Mr.. Tweed.
the voucher would be the mere form and the feoni.
GUS act was the taking Of the public money How
could Mr.. Tweed have restrained these men from
and the he'd drawing OF the public money .s1 upon them
were in no way chargeabe to Mr.. Tweed.
making the objection more specific and nnals he
would claim the privilege OF cross-examining the
witness to learn what he made up the filing Of his
The Court admitted Mr.. Burrills request.
The witness was then cross-examned and testi-
md folio iyohf pA from uyhtR
! filed up the warrants from Mr.. watson; these
papers were completed and endorsed and bore the
from the endorsements on the backs OF the vouch-
ers, without looking inside OF the contents OF the
vouchers; Mr.. Watson himself often wrote the en-
d0rsements on the voucners where
THE VOUCHERS CAME TO NE
with that endorsement didn't examine the
rant from the endorsement; always supposed from
the endorsement that there was corresponding
bill inside; there is nothing in the books of the
office or elsewhere to show whether the warrants
were drawn from Watson's mere endorsement Of
the vouchers or not; papers coming to me to have
the Auditors stamp affixed on the outside;
there was no rule about that; ! would
from Mr.. Watson directing me to draw them; /
made no examination Of the papers inside II there
the inside papers Il was only when they came to
me without any endorsement and merely looked
a At such papers RS inside as would give me
work performed, the amount Of the bill and the
date; always looked at the original bill of the
creditor only to learn these particulars; never ex
amined any OF the other papers in the bundle; IL
was no part OF my business to see that the bills
transactions except in clerical way to 6 out the
warrants; was examined in the trial of Mayor
Hall and recolect testfying that never did make
examinations OF contents OF inside papers among
DRAW ALL THE WARRANTS
for county expenditures which passed thrOugh.the
COmptrOers Office amounting to between six and
seven thousand warrants per year; also drew all
generally axed t the printed blanks for me Comp
them | handed them to MIR. Watson; he handed
blank; did not examine the bills to
see whether they were certified by any one; that
the outside blanks myself with mucilage: some.
times they came to me merely pinned together;
so I'm ana S e
and corresponding entries; l countersigned the
TO Mr.. Tremain-Before my signature was at
tached the warrants had already been signed by
the Mayor and Comptroller; my signature was the
papers together 1t was sometimes a day, sometimes
week before they were finally returned to me.
Mr.. Burrill here arose and objected that the war.
NOT COMPETENT EVIDENCE
of the nature OF the contents Of the bills vOuch
ers upon which the warrants purpOrted TO have
been drawn. The witness testified that he gener-
ally drew the warrants from the mere endorse
contents OF the vouchers contained In the wrapper
on which the endorsement was written: they OBJ
jected that the warrants were not competent as
they failed in any way to connect the de-
fendant with the vouchers the warrants
themselves, and the prosecution was bound to
than this witness had been able to do. This was
not civil suit, but criminal prosecution and the
the extreme limit Of the rule. They also objected
to the cumulaton Of offences. 1t was not neces-
an examination of alleged burglary or any other
O1ences in regard to these papers.
The Court intlmated that the counsel seemed to
predicate his argument altogether upon Mr.. Lynes'
testimony and ignore Mr.. Storrs testimony alto
gether as to the signatures Of the different oicias.
The testimony OF this witness did not connect the
defendant with these vouchers but it was ques.
ton for the jury whether Mr.. StOrrs testimony did
connect nun WIN those vouchers when are not
as Invent to show that In the performance OF public
duty an official had transcribed from certain
vouchers, when in existence, the names OF credi-
tors, the amounts due them and the nature OF the
work performed, &c. The papers must be ad-
show it, of the contents Of the vouchers
Mr.. Burrill said that even the witness Storrs was
careful to state only that he saw some Of these
the Court replied that Mr.. stOrrs had testified
WHAT PAPERS HE DID SEE
were signed by Mr.. Tweed, and therefore that tes-
timony would go to show the custom or rule in
pers must be admitted as evidence. Counsel ex.
cepted to the ruling.)
Mr.. Field asked whether the Court admitted
them as evidence on all the counts, as TO negli-
gence, and SO forth.
The COurt-Yes.
Mr.. Field-Then we beg to except to the recep-
ton of this evidence under the several counts-a
separate objection to its reception on each count.
Mr.. Peckham then took all the warrants and
read Off to the jury the date, name of creditor on
each warrant and the amount Tor which each war
rant was drawn. Uf course, Keyser and Garvey
have the biggest fingers In the pecuniary pie.
AS MIR PECKHAM READ THE LIST
he frequently stumbled across items Of $40, 900 to
$4,000 to Garvey ''for painting and decorating
for the defence audby and with eyes raised to the
dingy walls and ceiling, exclaimed
"lf the prosecution calls Mr.. Garvey as q witness
on this trial, to prove the quality Of his work. we
are going to impeach him In advance"
The reading OF the warrants occupied about
half an hour, and while 1t was progressing the
sky which had been murkY all daY, cleared a little