Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1873-01-23
THE UNITED STATES VS.. BOYD.
of witnesses.
SECOND DAYS PROCEEDINGS.

Court met yesterday morning at clock,
pursuant to adjournment, Judge HI. HI.
Emmons, presiding. The court room was
crowded with spectators interested in
hearing the proceedings in the Boyd
case.
l. Col. Baxter read the Indictment, which
charges the defendant with forgery in pre-
senting pension claim for Martha j.
Upton and sic minor children. Judge
IAndrews, the District Attorney, said the
said Martha j. Upton, widow of Frank
Upton, deceased Federal soldier, had
only four children, Boyd having fraudu-
lently filled up the original application
for six. The said Martha J. Upton, being
unable to read or write had made the affi-
davit, being ignorant of its real contents.
On this application pension was allowed.
The prosecution charges that Boyd paid
lover less than the amount to which four
children were entitled, while he had fraud
uIently procured an allowance for six.
/ Judge Nelson, counsel for Boyd, said
that i'm the defense it would be insisted
that large portion of the evidence receiv-
ed on a former trial was not admissible.
That Boyd was wholly guiltless in this
transaction, Martha ]. Upton having re-
peatedly sworn that she had six children.
That Boyd had paid her 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 TO 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-
ginal application for pension, additional
evidence, and other collateral papers.
| Daniel Heiskell, Esq, said that he was
| well acquainted with Thomas G. 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 and
chairman of the County Court Exami-
nation reserved. ...-r..-
| Hon. r.. A. r. 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, 1863,
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
lfhe time of the court by countless Objec-
/ lions supported in turn by arguments pro
and con.
The court held that it would be uni ust
to the defense to proceed with the argu-
ment in eXtenso, until they had argued
the first and second counts.
Attorney General Andrews asked if the
statute of limitations was applicable to
this case?
After explanations by court and counsel,
Mr.. Nelson said that he did not consider
it "nibbling" to pursue the course he had,
as charged by Col. Baxter. A-
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 he would
argue on the fact of pension claim and
no other, and evidence bearing Oh any
other claim was not admissible, and that
there was difference between the terms
{" claim" and voucher" His remarks
were extended and chiefly on points OF
law bearing Oh the counts in issue. .F7
The court held that the paper on which
a claim was written was nota claim itself,
but only the documentary evidence that a
claim for certain specified sum of money
had been made; and as regards the first
and second counts, they should not be ad-
mitted.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
, The trial was resumed by continuance
of the question as to the admissibility of
the evidence contained in the first and sec
ond counts of the Indictment. r rs 4
I Col Baxter, on behalf of the Govern J
ment, with all Difference to the opinio' .: 7
Judge Emmons and the learned counsel /
on the ather side, took issue with the
ruling of the court and the argument of
Judge Nelson as regarded the admissible
ty of such evidence. He cited authorities
in support of his view of the matter.
After an inquiry by the court as to
defendant within two years after
the claim was first made in order to push |
such claim through the department, and |
being answered in the negative, Judge |
Emmons held to his first ruling and de- |
clared the first and second counts
BARRED BY THE STATUTE re-. |
OF limitations. He then asked if there |
were any objections to the third and fourth.
counts?
Judge Nelson objected to their introduc
ton on the ground that the paper pre-
sented by the prosecution was of no
weight, not being a voucher.
Col. Baxter stated in refutation the |
course of the Government in such |
matters and maintained the ground that
the paper in question should be filed |
as sufficient evidence, and lin turn cited |
authorities showing that any testimony |
obtainable, if legitimate, was allowable,
whether occurring before or after the in |
dictment. At a former time the case had |
been tried without the books, but now he |
had them and cited authorities in support
of his position.
After some remarks by the court con-
corning previous rulings, Judge Nelson |
replied to Col. Bakers remarks. The |
prosecution had no right to go behind the |
voucher to endeavor to prove it false by
counts in the indictment ruled inadmissi- |
ble, concluding with brief argument in
support of his position. 49,.
Col. J. r. Cooke. for the defense then
made few remarks and cited authorities |
substantiating his side of the case.
After sparring between counsel, Maj. A. |