New-York tribune., 1873-01-29

the transcripts OF the deposit ssssted in taking
by himself aud Mr. Rhodes; he Wa s5s and two copy
the transcripts by Mr. Rhodes Mr. Gnins m Sa riy suit
PemoD ns "S VIZ that he Tas % IN Mr h e
den employ@on bad sso transcripts them
win Mr. smith, and read the deposit uche'' ~ "'"
had affidavit in ,ne S eg tbe Sar OF the People, and
Mr. Field intmated that tho defense Waxeu we, os,dnnce
opening s counsel on each side address the jury
ana anu 70 |stSectcd to close the testimony that day The
! Court then took a recess for an hour'
THE DEFENSE OPENS.
The Court having reassembed the deeose entered at
once into the business of by calling their wit
nesses The first called was Edward Gilbert, a
member OF the law firm OF Gilbert Smedey' he was
questioned regard 10 an action brought by nm as AZ
torpey for Mr. Garvey. Objection at made by
Mr. Tremain and Burril stated that the object was
10 show the complaint in the action testified 20 by
Mr. Garvey about which he was interrogaed and cross
examined. for the purpose Of ascertainng the claims
made against him. Judge Davis ruled it out as incom-
peent, and exception was taken The next question
was there an action begun by you attorneys for
Garvey against Mr.. Tweed February. 1872 or about
explained that he wished 10 show by the complaint in
that actqp what Il was and what II was brought ior
Mr.. PeCfham-MT. Garyey was in Europe AT tnAt tne
Mr. Burril-I know he was, but he adopted the terms
made by his brother John oher the summons ana
with that the signature OF A. j. Garvey Endorsed on e
| back.
Judge Davs-I cannot receiveit
The usual exception taken, and the witness was
A SERIES oP REJECTED ADDRESSES.
| Un1crShcrf Joel 0. stevens came next He stated
that he had been Sheriff six years. and had known Mr'
| Watson since 1857.
Mr.. Tremain-what is the object OF thsi
Mr. Burrill-I want to show that Mr. Watson up to the
time of his death enjoyed perfectly good reputation;
that he occupied a confidential position with regard to
the different Sheriff. Kelly, Brennan &c also desire
to show that he careful Ofcer and man skilled
! Judge Davis excluded his offers. The wtnese was
then shown an order Of arrest against Garvey which
from, fha off MT
it was about Oct o. 1871 Mr.. Treman objected again
and Mr. Burri said he wanted to show there was an
order against Garyey and TO fix the dale OF H.
Judge Davis-I ont see any competency -. l.,
MI Field-We offer to show t9at % there rs rs su1n n
pending against Mr. Tweed for the recovery OF all money
alleged to have been received by him, and more for all
the money which it is alleged in this suit had been
| received from the city by anybody; TO snow
that If there be any such thing which we
utterly deny, any money received by him the city
and the people have ample remedy Tor every % aoiaf
In addition already been developed that there are
several and two lat least cig sui suits al ICr
want before the Court and jury the fact tha there
year. in which Mr. Tlden was one OF the counsel anu
made affidavit claiming the whole s6OOOOOO 80, ..
mony. showing that Mr. Tweed has sufficient property
in his hands to respond to DAMAGES which we claim
Mr.. Feld-That is sufficiently proved by the palhtlns
themselves who have always averred that he had many
Judge Dayls-Oh. this ia useless talk.
Mr. Burr-I also desire to show that after GaryeY
back order OF arrest reetng the facts wa u.s.
m Connection with the fact that the sheriff received
| word 90 make any arrest against Garyey.
| Judge Davis-It is totally irrelevant.
Mr. Fullerton-We can show that Garyey was under
apprehension OF arrest aud that would De reason or
| changing his testimony.
Judge Dayis-No Ii ia irrelevant
EFFORTS TO CONTRADICT GARvEY.
The witness was allowed to co. and Eugene Durnin.
who was Commissioner of Deeds in 1867. and knew Mr.
| Garyey then, was called He was handed alpaper ta0-
davit and asked that his signature The answer
was checked by instant objection, although the wit
! ness answered subsequently Yes"
| O. Was the affidavit sworn to by Mr. Garvey on the
| day mentioned in your certhcatef
(Obected to on the ground that 1t was collateral ey
| A good deal OF argument ensued here TO the ad
visibility of the testimony. MI Burr stated that IT
was offered to falsy Garveys statement that the oath
was administered in accOrdanc with the certificate
Judge Dayis-I have no evidence the point but
| Mr. Burril-You have no evidence to rebut him but
| the presumption OF the certificate.
Judge DaVsAll this was called out on the cross-ex-
animation Il cannot allow evidence to rebut the wit
| ness on a collateral question.
that his statement of having inserted Is per cent on the
bills untrue We offered the bills as verified state
ment and as "a cert cate and Honor wouldn't allow
| us 10 the paper unsworn or with the certificate
attached But all that came out on crossexamnation
| by theu Now We have tine man in court who admins
tered OATH and have the first opportunity OF proving
the papers verified aud it would be very strict on us
Judge Davis said he could not allow the testimony
did contradict the testimony that Is per cent
added, but collateral matter affecting the credit OF
Mr. Burrl said it did because the veriAcation went
prove the accounts TO be correct Suppose there was no
affidavit at all and Garyey was asked didn't y9n ten
defense would have the beneht OF Mr. Durnn's contra
dctiOn. Now, the defense produce certificate, saying
nothing of affidavit and the witness he signed
| and his Honor excludes 1t.
Judge Davis said he thought he allowed 1t. II not he
Mr. Burrill said that when the witness, Garvey, was
asked "Did MT you and So" the remark made
| He MT then under oath" The defonse produced
the adayts and Garyey driven TO denying that he
Judge Davis--f allow you go into that collateral
question and prove that he made the afidayts, how
that Notwithstanding this gentemans testimony he did
not This Of evidence Is excluded by law, III my
Judgment. may be mistaken and err you have the
benefit Of your exception
THE PLEA OF ovER-woRK RIDICCLED
Joseph Young testified that in 1867 and 1868 he
was Clerk TO the Board OF Supervisors and knew Mr.
Garvey. He was handed paper and asked II on that
date in 1861 Garvey took oath before him. Excudedl
The witness asked If the Board OF Supervisors
der the act Of April, 1870 was organized d. upon July T.
The witness continued The Board of Supervisors en-
tered upon duties the first Monday n July, the day
and Board Of Aldermen have been the Supervisors and
the defendant has not acted as member
| Charles L. McClenCahan testified that he book
keeper in the Department OF Public Works and believed
himself be familiar with his duties after eleven years
experience he had known the defendant little
twenty years he had known him when he was Deputy
Commssioner and later, when he became Commissioner
OF Public Works in June or july 1870. he understood
that Tweed Supervisor he did not remember that
-" MT BUrriil-As Commissioner Of Public Works, what
! were his general dutiesi OBJECTED tO)
| Mr., Burrill claimed that they wished TO show how
| actively Mr.. Tweed engaged In his duties.
Mr. Tremain said that whatever dutee he had to per-
form he should performed properly and IL
excuse he had so much to do that he had
| no time 10 do 1t faithfully.
| Mr Feld-Ths Is To show that the defendant held
several public Offices The law expected him TO perform
them ali TO the best Of his ability We propose 10 show
that tins Office requires him to sign his from 100 TO
500 times every day. Upon that wish TO TO the
fury and ask he was TO go 10 the bottom OF every ac-
| count and examine each one.
Judge Davis--It can be excuse for public officer
10 sbrk the duties OF his Office that he has too many
Offices 10 attend 10. He has remedy. He resign.
IL for negecllng these tutles 70 show that