The New York herald., 1873-11-27
tney not sent TO Bollar cor A. That can't say
1TI T}I,a 90 cIaSad tho ca ae oT tho aefence


the firm OF Robinson Lord. who testned tnat
the goods for which bills were made out TO Heath
4 Smith were really sold to the Heath Smith
Mr. Heath was recalled and denied the testimony
OF Harrington that he had directed him to make
out the bin to the county; he denied absolutely
any conversation about the bill with Harrington;
mgersoll did buy some umbrella stands from the
check, and they were sent to Bollar Il Co.. these
goods bought for the Court House and so marked
by him were charged to Ingersoll
books; I understood they were charged to his
name; know he directed some goods to be charged
to him ! did not see the umbrella stands delivered
TO BsIar a Co., but ! know they were; don't
think was present when Ingersoll gave the direc-
Mr.. Bird was recalled and testified that all the
umbrella stands OF that pattern which they had on
soil and se paid for Dem tn told him
that Boar Co.'s man would be down for them,
and that Bollar's carman did come down for them,
and ne tBird) delivered several lots to HIM Far.
rington told him that he was independent OF any
one around there; that Jimmy" would take care
OF him, and showed him checks OF James ii. lnger-
soil on the Bowery Bank; these umbrella stands
were charged to James h. lngersoll in the books
OF the company, and he believed were never trans
ferred to any other account
SUMMING UP FOR THE DEFENCE
The above closed the testimony on both sides
and Mr.. Fullerton began summing up for the de-
fence. He began by calling attention 10 the accu-
sation to guard the jury from being mised into try
The charge was not for fraud or procuring money
from the city unwarrantably.t The question was,
forged BY the e attendants Within the legal
meaning OF the word 'forged." and whether, know
rSs, be SO was snsy had and s
ne believed IL men could answer 1t in the affirm
ative. After the care they had taken to secure
without bias. One Of the circumstances embar-
RAISING counsel was the weight OF prejudice under
came before them from other charges ana other
circumstances. He therefore warned the jury
or rp X.
istence OF the old firm OF Heath b Smith, and Its
union in the Heath b Smith Manufacturing
Company, OF which Ingers0ll became President;
but 1ngersoll gave no personal supervision to it;
Heath carried the city part OF the business and
gersoIl merely occasionally visited the place, some
times not for weeks nor even months He was
m oS 81
bought goods from the company; except in very
general way he did not know the prices Of their
goods; Heath, however. knew. Bearing that In
mind, ne asked the jury to look into the evil
dence. This bin was made out BY Harrington, and
harrington had given them the history OF II. That
history, Heath, It true, denied. harrington told
them that Heath had brought him memorandum
MAKE out ~ this s u II a sna o eGf aea
Smith That was natural story. Harrington was
Q clerk under Heath's control: 1t was to show
that the letters ordering him to Chicago ana order
ing him what to 90 in Chicago were introduced
Heath told him why the old name OF Heath 4
that bin now. Its propriety might be examined
IN another proceeding, but this direction by one OF
dif1erent face on the transaction: They must be-
lieve harrington or Heath on this point. He re-
called to them the litigation ana personal hostility
OF Heath against Ingersoll; his threat against In
gersoll proved BY Hall and his denial OF any reco
lection OF 1t, and claimed that this denial OF reco
tradiction OF Heath. Mr. Ives told them he saw this
bill In the Times and at once called Mr.. Heatn's
Bill was an right Here was another % dat denial a i Of
Heath, and besides tnat 1t showed that Heath did
know a something ol & the BILL H. why should ID he say say
amount. Had there been 1t would have been pro-
duced. When Heath came on the stand in execu-
the State Prison, he lcounseD was constrained to
say that he was perJured. He was influenced by
told Ives was all right. the desire to exculpate
himself and the desire to carry out his revenge.
He was not going to argue from the similarity OF
the "En that these signatures OF ''E. A. Heath''
and "Heath h SMITH were written by Mr.. Heath.
1t was not necessary they should do go. There
were some witnesses who testified to a belief that
they were written by harrington, but he claimed
that this testimony was altogether untrustworthy.
and the other testimony was that OF excited wit
nesses. In the light OF the contradictory testi-
sons familiar Wa eis Handwriting swore pn the
signatures were not like his handwriting. He
personally swore wore he did not @ write them II was
Court House. He showed them the bills OF goods
bought by the Heath Smith Manufacturing Com
by Ingersol, but by the company. They knew " hat
was the reason for using the companys name and
defend that reason. Ingersoll might answer
for that elsewhere. But here some one had
fHotS fSat some one was James n inaerso
II he put at the head OF his own bin Heath Smith
and signed their name to the receipt or to the
warrant, that crime was not forgery. And they
would remember that Heath gave his consent to
the use OF his name. The last trace Of the bin
troller's once. And here was significant
point, that Farrlngton, careful and eau
In oRaea oosea e eeusa saea s
own. Did not every possibility point TO Heath
himself having presented this bin and got this
warrant and then handed 1t over to Ingerso? Was
it not probable that Heath, pressed for money said
to lngers0l ~ shall have this warrant tomorrow;
that there was such an advance OF $4,000. He ex-
planned Mr.. Farrington's running away when q
over what he he had Collected had become @ @ deauIser @
and fed the absence OF the books was a mere mis-
take, in counsel's Judgment.
Mr.. Fullerton was here compelled to sit down
through an attack oil vertigo, and the Court took
a recesS
SUMMING UP FOR THE PROSECUTION.
On the reassemblng OF the Court Mr.. Treman
summed up ior the prosecution, beginning, like
Mr.. Fullerton, by explaining the Indictment. The
a forged signature, the other for uttering the
paper knowing 1t to be forged. They could find
either or both defendants guilty OF either or both
counts, or each of a different count, or general
verdict OF guilty against one or both. He
pointed out TO the jury that it was not
forgery or both should have acted in uttering it.
II they acted in completely with each other, one
signing and the other advising, or one gave it to
the other to utter, this was joint forgery and a
joint uttering, under which both were guilty.
They were II was true, not to trv the defendants
on any crime but the crime charged; but, on the
other hand IL the proof OF the crime developed that
1t was but the consummation OF another nagitious
crime, which the counsel for the defence could not
defend and would not deny then they had made
great step towards proof OF that final act.
the actual writing by the defendants. Criminals
were ordinarily too cunning for that to happen.
The proof must almost always be clrcumstantial.
The possession OF forged papers unexplained was
enough, and men were constantly convicted OF
uttering forged paper knowingly on that alone.
They mad, first OF all, the fact that James H. In
gersoll was an olicer In high position, and that he
certified that he had 'auditedn-that is, "exam-
ined and investigated''-the bill. He certified on
this bill that he had done 30. Had he examined 1t
its fraudulent character must have been at
once apparent. He was president OF the
Heath 4 Smith Manufacturing Company He knew