New-York tribune., 1873-12-24
THE PROCEEDINGS.

Mt Pec6bam soon as the Court opened IN the nor-
ing. Lifting up huge quarto volume before the eyes
fthe Jury ne informed them that the book contained
nrned record Of tho oenses charged against the de-
fendant constituting the indictment. For the fourth
time he was explaining the jury the case for tho pros
ecuton against A. Oakley Hall. The counsel
having briefly referred to the indictment as
charging ffy-fve distinct Ofenses, under TWO
separate heads of maleasance and mlsfeaanoe IN ONCE
no cited the provisions OF the special statute oonstut
ing the Mayor and two other officials Board for audit
,ng claims against the city. There we're claims to the
amount Of Ss320OO passed by that Board. Ihe oi'ls
we're OF such character to bear on the lace OF he
proof OF their fasity and yet OF that sum hVe mon
seven hundred and odd thousand dollars went ln'o ~
poekes OF Ipgerso now In State Prison; GarVey' the
court plasterer and E. A. Woodward. who hnds IL con
vsnont 70 be absent Substantially, the question the
tury were asked 10 try was whether the Mayor as
member OF that Board of Audit wfuily neglected MS
duty in certifying TO those bills when ho had not AUDITED
tLem. o-
TUE DEPUTY CONTROLLERS TESTIMONY
The first witness called was the Deputy Controller
Nc sorrs whose testimony Of the same character
As the other Ring trials which have taken place. he
produced resolution found in the Controllers office,
passed by the Board OF Audit signed by Tweed Connolly
and the Mayor and IN the latters handwriting dated
April T. 1870 and directing their clerk, Woodward, TO
collect the bills aud ax the banIs for their action and
signatures Mr. storrs said he searched In the Office
but could find no other paper relating TO meetings OF the
Commission of Audit He also produced vouchers found
the Office the book OF County lAaolties ana the
containing 100 items. The Liabilities Book contained
the accounts OF the Board OF AUDIT ana corIespohug
Of warrants were copied from day 10 day This and the
voucher book put in evidence.
Some cscusson arose as to proving the signatures
the keyser vouchers but tho counsel Tor Mr. Hail. IN
order 10 facItate matters admitted them to be
me aud made objection 20 putting them and all the
accounts IN evidence The signatures 20 the "a Garvey
warrants we're also admitted to be true for a similar
berry. which has become now FAMILIAR narration ana
which was entered into IN order to account for the pre-
seTvaon of the ten Keyser vouchers which taken
t appears TO part OF the Controllers Office 10 be
no SSS oScr @eoins Of the Board Audit than one
MIR StOrrs then cross-eAamined by the accused
Mayor himself His statements disclosed that be was
appointed Deputy Controller IN 1885, and that watson
became County Auditor In 1865. Here tue exMayor
unwittiney created some amusement Dy asRlns Ine
witness in the most professional tone "Ihat was
was not 2" cit was" replied Mr. StOrfs In answer
further questions 1t stated that III the summer
troler alone the law of 1858 missing. Tho
famous voucher robbery occurred at about the same
time. The books then in not in any sense a
record OF the Board of Audit but OF the independent
o. the inaS9 d e ep over the eoHnr ~
liabilities account, and examined the vouchers. some
0f the bills had something written on them, showing
that they had been Board of SUPERVISOR and
only held together by pm ana tie warrant
mad been detached The stamp Of the County Auditor
was on every certificate, and this was proof OF udt
County Auditor WatsOn's duties were described, and
then important question which created another
Disagreement between counsel The exMayOr had Oh
deaVOred 10 show how many warrants anu ceruncdtes
Of audit passed through his hands roin tne Cltb au
County Departments ia 1870, evidently 10 prove the l-
possibility of examining each ore. -. -.
Mr. Tremain objected strongly on account OF It's
incompetence. The number OF warrants the Mayor hid
10 sign nothing 10 do with the special claims 10 oe
audited and adjusted by special commission and ne
sxng of his signature in TINS case was very Geient
from the ordinary signing of his name Mr. rremain
sad no inclined to allow the widest latitude to the
defense, but he could not allow TINS
Question whether this duty wlfuIy neglected. If
not, 1t can 90 no harm. 49, A., .,ou . ,,
10000 but ne would ascertain from the books ne sad
81 was no unusual thing for the Mayor TO sign warrants
having on face OF them such sums as st6oD $0OVO
or $40 oOo When the warrants were attached the
vouchers the papers were sent ~ bundles an ard "'
a time. by u messeu ger for the Mayors signature
Mr Peckham briefly re6xamined the witness, asking
him about the large appropriations made py the Legs
Court-house nearly completed, all OF which down
10 1871 were exhausted and he explained ior the sats
faction OF Mr. Stought0D that he INTENDED 10 snow
that II the Mayor had paid the attention winch the law
required the large bills for work on the courthouse
work having been already paid for The rest of MI
Storrss testimony very brel ana was 10 the eneet
that tho OF t632sS was Drawn Oh Tue I''
ior Courthouse supplies.
TESTIMONY OF s. c. LINES.
After recess stephen c. Lynes called to The Wit
ness stand HIS evidence Of the same character as
that Of the preceding witness and similarly dry and IN
Interesting TO any but legal minds. He testified ss to
the routine OF the Controllers office, and that the war
rants were drawn up by him. On crossexamination he
was asked by the defendant whether there was anything
on the OF the papers that passed through ms hands
that aroused suspicion that he was aidngor promoting
a fraud He answered, No.; they came To him through
the regular business channel he reached the office at 10
O'Clock the morning aftet the uisappearanC1e OF
the vouchers, and there were marks OF violence
on the closet from which the papers were
In reply 10 r Treman the witness said that IN 1869 the
uractioe of enforcing affidavit fell into disuse there
were blank forms OF affidavit attached 70 tne os voueh
ers tho those attached TO Inc VOUCHERS now IN
Court he has known instances wnete uieIe Mere 1
sdsvits 10 1865 and 1863 10 me MayOl ne % a th
formulas contnuedt 20 DC oOSeE'eu ""0H 'N' "'"
Board went INTO once
TESTIMONY OF JOHN II. KEYsER
I,ho II Keyser was called to prove the fraudulent
nature Of the bills under his name The defendant
objected that no fraudulent auditing was charged snd
he was not present when the taccouh's Nero Aue ny
This led 10 a very long discussion.
Mr. Tremain replied that this objection was made on
the frst trial, Obvate which new indictment wa, was
passed iu which the fslsy OF the bis was a.teeu. .
se prosecution proving that the defendant alI not
audit at liberty 70 show tas s sSy e' Inc D'0 "'
Mr.. Stoughton said they offered no ooeeuon 10 @ any
PROOF connecting with the fraudulent suuLtlhs eon
nothing In the opening On the three frs counts the
charge "a misdemeaDOr, wfuly refusing 70 perform
duty. justice OF the peace refusing " 'aso sh,n az
AFFIDAVIT was guilty OF the onense, th9ugn
there was no Fraud in the case. 1t would ,uS, be
or unjust If slr. Hall refused 70 audit H. IT..
In the Of the People g Stocking the Court J1Gge
DsnIesi held that officer exercising Jucciai iuhc
fons cannot be held liable except for fraud In that
must be noted that the defendant acted WIN ne
knowledge thst tue bills fraudulent, or the pro
posed evidence was incOnsequental. Tue prosecution
were cOnfouDding the liability for rauduently auditing
with fraudulent purpose. under the Iaw with
wiu ne glcct OF auditing under the statute One was
no audit, aud the otuef an AUDIT by corrupt lDrans'
not as counsel but friend he never srove 10 keep
out ooy testimony connecting tue defendant with a
Srsuduent knowledge the bills. Bat the
dtd not propose 20 prove such Snowedee the de
1.udsnt ciud not therefore ne liable for the addition
- re ner cent 10 Key scrs bills OF wnlch lie could KNOW
nothing. "a .-.on,ya ia. ,-oo. l.. =, =.
-, - ,eA tbaf N the defendant bad performed
,YnnoSed upon him ny the ia@ or 1870 10 AUDIT the
socounts he would have diseo'eieu '" 'P""""s
Mr kryser then testified that when he presehfo ms
,I. ,n thr Controllers ohco for pay nlent 'pcF toh
.-t.d ~ old bills which had been before inc pVaIu VI
s,.rvI,or.. these bills were made up III tDe oupe ~
NA..aA IN nd