New-York tribune., 1873-12-16
RRrTToN's ALLEGED MISCONDUCT.

RRrTTON'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
THE EVIDENCE CLOSED-THE CONRADDY PERJURY
C>su-TEsTIMONIALs OF GOOD CHARACTER-A
PEW WITNESSES IN REBUTTA~
After a session of eleven days, the last of
the testimony regarding the charges preferred against
winchester Britton DstrlctAttorney OF Kings County,
has been submitted to the Commissioner appointed by
GOV DIX and the contract for the printing has been
AWARDED and as the testimony is printed IL VIII
e submit led 10 the Governor, and the opposing counsel
will sum up before him. Wilson Godfrey grand Juror,
a.asA yesterday regarding the Conrady charge Judge
Nelson and Judge Moore testified that so far as their
observation extended, the was IN he
habit OF dschargng his duties faithfully Mr. Britton
explained his action in the case OF Keenan, and C. L.
Morris was also questioned concerning it, Judge Nc
Cue and exJudge Troy called to give the accused
good character which they did 50 far as their Rnow-
edge extended. Important testimony in rebuttal was
given by Walter Cove, f. {. Steel. and Mrs. q. W.
Gardner. Attorney General Barlow has been absent
during the greater part Of the session, owing to sick
TESTIMONY OF WILSON GODFREY.
At the beginning of the session Wilson Godfrey was
ralled concerning the first supplemental charge He
testifed When Mr. Morris appeared before the Grand
Jury the latter had found indictments against Sheriff
williams, ex-Sherif Walters, Justice Delmar, Justice
Riley and Justice Elliott the charges related TO the
Dvercharge by the Sheriff the board OF prisoners;
Conraddy had been keeper OF the jail under exSherh
related TO the OF keeping the accounts and OF
making charges TO the county after indictments had
Dssn spod 0upS Seogs o't u.s. and began 70 make
sSHar sSarSo against coDraddy for perjury; while he
snsness we were then transactine be gave us
vice subject and retired he instructed us that
yaa Improper to have the statement of any one not
under oath Judge Morris made his complaint against
Conraddy without being under oath he stated the te
and place wherethe perjury was committed, gave the
names OF the witnesses who could prove II. ana re-.
quested Us to nyesGate It the 9es 9aS cs s
and told him OF decision and requested MN 70 sum
us; the next day Britton before and
advised relation 10 the charge OF perjury against
Conraddy; he ,sad thai while he instructed US that,
while the witness had been brought before u.s. and while
according his story he was partieeps ertninis II,
against whom he had testified, and II 1t appeared that
those whom we had indicted ON his testimony had
would bad faith in the jury TO ndict the witness
they had used in the case; he gave no further
reasons not gong on ana investigating tne Con,
r"nrSdtS. 1%1pg we might or might not convict him,
Di''TSt sHa that it Would probably close his mouth
as witness in the cases where we had
already found indictments; the first question was
whether it was proper Grand Jury receive any
communication on any subject then before them ro
any person under except the District Attorney
and for Jury would be punished; the next question
whether 1t was proper for grand juror 10 hoa az
his residence any communication with persons IN reia
ton 10 any matter which was then under consideration
by the Graud jury the answer To TINS was tne sao as
10 the last; the next question was whether, after
grand jury had used witness who from ms own tes5
inony appeared was parttefpes ertn"t IL w0ud Dc
proper that grand jury 10 indct nun on charees
brought against linn; the Judge answered tnA nc Knew
Of law 10 prevent the Gfdnu jury irou maninN o"Vu
indictment.
Mr. Morris then showed the witness the three
printed questions which Mr. Btton had declared false
Mr. Morris said that the witness had given the first two
questops almost word for word, but that there
slight variation Ia the last The witness said that
the printed statement OF this question wrong and
he right. The differences between the two, however,
mmsterial The witness added that the jury had
Intended ndict Conradds, and that the change in
their intention caused By the advice Of Mr Britton
and the judge.
Judge Nelson one Of the Justices OF the City Court of
Brooklyn, testified that 80 far he knew the District
Attorney had discharged his duties faithfully. He
acknowledged the crosse xaIninaton however. that
IN his official capacity be had had very little TO do with
ths DlstrictAtorney. only a very small number of
criminal cases being tried before him
BRITTOs's CASE BEFORE THE GRASD JURY
Jndge Moore called in relation charge that
Mr. B,itton falsely advised the Grand Jury and pre-
wanted an into his alleged official miscon
duet. He testified:
90 far "a know Mr. Briton has discharged his duty
viynlantIy charged the Grand Jury ON Tue subject OF
n srt,ee published IN The brooklyn sunday Chronicle
~ sent a. 1874 1t refers 10 the kcchdh case, and was
headed "Tbe DE factO Distrlct-httOrney, 1 charged
,ha,n that N article true the DstfctAtorney
- cr1 mi nal and ought he indicted, ana III the Bri
ce ws not that the publisher oi o paper ought
10 be indicted ., a. ....,o. ,,,I, ,Dxos
.,aa and had no partiality 1 had just as soon
ais, Mr. BrittOn not II thought he was guilty
I minutes OF the Grand Jury in this case were put
A. dence despite the objections OF the defense Inc
defense wished only the caption of the minutes TO 90 H.
,,,og that the remark WAS imniateral This hesdihR
- aInvestigation Of the charges against DistilcE
.,,nroev Britton" The copy Of the minutes showed
tlt The issestisaou was not an examination 0i 'b0