Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1873-01-29

for six. The said Martha j. Upton, being
unable to read or write had made the af1i-
davit, being ignorant of its real contents.
On this application pension was allowed, !
The prosecution charges that Boyd paid |
over less than the amount to which four |
children were entitled, while he had fraud |
ulently procured an allowance for six
Judge Nelson, counsel for Boyd said |
that in the defense it would he insisted |
that large portion Of the evidence receiv- |
ed on q former trial was not admissible. |
That Boyd was wholly gultless in this
transaction, Magtha j. Upton having re-
peatedly sworn that she had six children.
That Boyd had paid her a small sum more
than she was entitled to. That the mate
rial witnesses for the prosecution were ig-
norant negroes, wholly incredible, some of
whom they expected 10 impeach,
The witnesses were called, sworn and
put under the rule.
Mr. Willard was the first called. He was
Clerk and Special Agent of the Pension
Bureau He examined certain papers
presented for his inspection and Identified
them as having been on file in the Pen
sion Office. In answer to questions from
the court he defined what they were-ori-
ginai application for pension, additional
evidence, and other collateral papers.
Daniel Heiskell, Esq, said that he was
well acquainted with Thomas @. Boyd's
hand writing and identified the same IN
several instances.
Col. NJ, +. johnson was the next wit
ness called. He resided in Monroe county
and had held the Office of magistrate ana
chairman of the County Court. EXaml-
nation reserved.
Hon. II. A. II. Nelson submitted the ar
gument that conviction on the first count
of the Indictment was barred by the stat
ute of limitations of two years, the claim
having been presented on March l, 1869,
dated October 20, 1866. Nor admissible on
the second count because claim presented
outside Of the jurisdiction of East Tennes-
see.
Col, Baxter was in favor Of arguing the
case on its merits instead Of consuming
the time of the court by countless objec-
tions supported in turn by arguments pro
and con.
The court held that it would Ice unjust
to the defense to proceed with the argu-
ment i'll cXtenso, until they had argued
the first and second counts.
Attorney General Andrews asked II the
statute of limitations was applicable 70
this case?
After explanations 10y court and counsel,
Mr. Nelson said that he did not consider
il "nibblingn to pursue the course he had,
as charged by Col. Baxter
a portion of the statute bearing on the
case in question was read by Judge Nelson
on the one hand and Judge Andrews on
the other.
Judge Nelson then stated that be would
argue on the fact of a pension claim and
no other, and evidence bearing on any
other claim was not admissible, and that
there was q difference between the terms
claim - and "voucher.n His remarks
were extended and chiefly on points o
law bearing on the counts in issue.
The court held that the paper on Whicl
a claim was written was not claim itself
but only the documentary evidence that I
OF f,,ra nj n
had been made; and a regards the frs
and second counts, they should not be al
mitted.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The trial was resumed by continuance
of the question as to the admissibility o
the evidence contained in the liIat ana sec
ond counts of the indictment
Col. Baxter, on behalf Of the Govern
ment, with all Difference to the opinion O
judge Emmons and the learned cOunse
on the ather side, took issue with til
ruling of the court and the argument q
Judge Nelson as regarded the admissible
ty Of such evidence. lie cited authorize
in support of his view of the matter.
After an inquiry by the court as t
whether anything had been done by th
defendant within two years &ite
the claim was first made in order to pus
such claim through the department. an
being answered in the negative. Judg
Emmons held to his first ruling and dc
clared the first and second counts
BARRED BY THE STATUTE
OF limitations. lie then asked If thcI
were any objections to the third and tourt
counts?
Judge Nelson objected TO their introdu'
ton on the ground that the paper pre-
scented 10y the prosecution was OF II
weight, not being voucher.
Col. Baxter stated in retutation I'll
anursn of the Government IN sue
matters and maintained the ground tn;
the paper in question should be file
as sufficient evidence, and lin turn cite
authorities showing that any testimon
obtainable, if legitimate, was allowabi
whether occurring before or after the il
dictment At a former time the case Ia
been tried without the books, but now /
had them and cited authorities ia suppo
of his position.
After some remarks by the court cor
corning previous rulings, Judge Nelsc
replied TO Col. BaXter's remarks. III
prosecution had no right to go behind Il
voucher to endeavOr to prove it false |
counts in the indictment ruled inadmiss
bile, concluding with a brief argument
support of his position.
Col. J. r.. Cooke, for the defense the
made few remarks and cited authOrlti
substantiating hi side of the case.
After sparrng between counsel, Maj.
II. Pettibone, assistant L. ;. AttOrn
General read the original application
pension from Martha j. Upton, colore
and all the MINERS bearing on the case.