The New York herald., 1873-11-18

"a
proved in any indictment By any b9dg b. 'hat sr
ahe ceur, ruled that the as hss "a ssis ss0 wss
proper part o. the history OF The affair, and allowed
Mr. " Rsyser rs said aid ina, he never authorized any
sign the ten receipts or endorsed the sixteen warrants
ssp he
this was dated M Sey 81 ana one oneG a. 70
We ~af he sSe hm
s gS%S 1S & bills N
tS wa Tss aeTs If 70 o % b. M
purple INK while balls and connoiy's signatures we're
= ia. Court then took recess
THE jury ANXIOUS TO GET THROUGH
to s n S Ms5e &
to have the room warmed and shea DIOR Tor session
ea and
Mr. storrs little evidence about The color Of the
INK and then n 70 The surprise Of every one Mr. ireman
Counsel Tor the defence said that this entire sur
jns hS they g
Cennse ior the deience-i would as soon ca Lucier.
This surprise to us We have some motions TO make
ns eaa
era we aec the OF
eeIon wosd occg2y m are h & 10 on.
point under that inimaton has gone to prepare himself
ir Judge Davis ruled that they must SO on.
MOTION 70 DISMISS INDICTMENT.
Mr.. Root thercnpon after sending some books,
moved to dismiss The indetmen, as 70 all the counts
ing in different neglect 10 audit the bills referred
S hs s Hf @ass e
to neglect TO perform an act required by statute where
was sss upon the Eroand penalty the Violation
the s sh ss asEsa rs s
statute, being lne Of $3.50 Mr Root in illustra
l9 al he i0f nse point Mr.
oes esns hns faaiS "a
peryisor charged With cognate but additional duty
pp 70 duties BY n,y laws a He b claimed d I
iendan @ mt was acting not supervisor but under
hs dnes By to % the
once president; and in reality what The act Of ApTll
to Perform @ the duties assumed, with The help
Ct e s q as e and
sa G e n nd as Sn r any
There difference between the Bench and the Bar
were not there 70 the or eha ar
lenceNit was The criminal law that was technical The
defence was set up 70 suari man against
marderer % s ,hs hat no should punish
4e o ana
by IN whsh 60ws in were @ gssn M Se sea
hands upon statute authorizing his conviction The in
wa Frs
ssisn .ass hesy sss sPsissl'n
sSaEgsd duties 5 been . %Po;sa s%n1
s & S
meeting hSensy
e y o to od uaas e the sa says ass
sSan
n9r h esd or as mot ns
We're bound to hold meetings Another point was that
thG es %eoes e1a es as
MIR Trcmain here interrupted. He understood that
repealed and he was gog lni9 % other question: -
be as se Ps De sm
main man on the Stokes trial noush this
Mr. bartlett then argued that the law under which the
defendant ci~ged with misicmeano is repealed, be-
punlshahe not with ine, as before nu line and imprs-
9nmen making i felony s & not mis- hsi ,
charged against proved would constitute
fhere fhereiore. t..u cond Su not stand
Judge Davis SAID the points raised were not without
satntes have provided punishment for neglect duty
S % o4 Ct ns e e ee @ &c
from as Of the Board Of
s s s Sa s the ns' them h% on
new duties imposed on the suneryisors but their
~o hs s Ss dds
which were a. @ law made
mock auction randi :he INDICTMENT does no, snarEs
wickedy in office and i2a brings i into the
catalogue, not of iclones, but of misoemeanors
TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFENCE
The defence waIved any formal opening.
VIM. $. Copeland, assistant bookkeeper at the Comp
office he s he hS
sn. m aows eTs Of the sn With at SS Of
At The top where vouchers placed after BENZ re.
ssy %
pigeonhoed; these pigeonholes the large desk
Judge Davis asked what was the meaning of that evil
Mr. Root said to prove that there no such voucb-
RS
charged in the Indictment and that Mr.. Tweed never
S'S9S Witness sesed hat duty to number the
o4 book taken from % he Aadt @
where Mr. Lynes made entries from warrsnts Mr. Lyncs
saw him make warrant and take It to Mr.
SSr s M
rants were forged; be must have known 1t for he was
fooRins over book must have seen the figure for
for by ngerso GarSey and Wason
and he took them from the pgc9nholesi they were
s asy ns gen and the
sometimes lost some times some OF the pages of GarSeys
bills would be gone has seen erasures on the certificate
6rossexa%ined bT Nj: feeSham-Dd not see all the
had been paid parties asked for vouchers and took
them away; he did not make any remark when the
called for the prosecution at he first trial and then
that he rst mentioned about ccrtincates missing; ali
the 81 audit he shsd GSfS % IT Wes n ae office had e
9 When @ you made aSs,a an aiidayit to me did you
look on tne scbeuule Of EU county liabilities
and tell that there certificate
audit by the defendant attached to every OF themf
A. did not, SIR let me explain Counsel here read
witness affidavit hat All the vouchers Tor county labili
ties certified by defendant The witness
in reply to further Quetons said he presumed every
time Mr.. Iynes drew up warrant there
spending voucher: the warrant made from the
voucher and the entry the record book the
rant
Q. Did you swear 10 this other printed afidavitf
Counsel Tor detence-I object TO asking him question
from printed copy.
Mr. Peckham-I haven't done so. For heavens sake
don't object before the question To witness)-Did
you examine Garvey's vouchers and see that Twecd's
certificate attached To eachY
The witness replied in the negative.
Mr.. Peckham then rcai the affidavit which stated
that witness had seen all The vouchersn
Counsel for the defence objected to reading a lengthy
about the frauds and the was oyerred
Counsel Tor Deience-Will Your Honor please TO grant
The Court-Certainly, half dozen IL YOU like
Witness-you (Mr. Pcckham) insisted on putting in
that, because / told you had all the ants,
but not the vouchers
TESTIMONY OF A.
Mr.. A. = Smith, who was bookkeeper in the Broadway
Bank In 1870, called for the and handed in
list of Woodwards deposits from May 1870 Septcm-
ber MIR. Lynes, recalled BY the prosecution contra
dipt M