New-York tribune., 1873-12-11
was signed nv mo- think. on the 18th in the morning


1t was prosecuted and read TO me by Mr. Britton he
said he would attach the commitments up 10 that time
had no knowledge Of any commitment except the one
under which Mr. shanks had been received at the jail
had no further conversation with Mr. Brttonpr to
testfying in New York; this commitment which desig
mates the period OF imprisonment as 80 days. first
heard Of through the evening papers of the 2ft un-
which supposed TO be in existence, and that it had
been annexed 10 my return; weHt over next nofnlbe
To New York. of accord tofestify before Judge
Fapcher ard there saw for the time this second
commitment did not retain Mr.. Triton as my orcidt
counsel IN any irdy and acrcr did.
To Mr.. TracyIt did net occur TO whether me hrst
paper was an order or a commitment; 'ook IL as
commitment
To Mr.. Cunton-Mr Britton came tc me did not 80
To him. -,
Charles p Young the stenographie reporter Of tho
Court of oyer and Termiper OF New YORK, was heA'
sworn, and identified report OF portions OF tne sn,
corpus ease in New-York Mr.. Brltton then admitted
that he had received the notice OF tns Deiore 'uoS
Fancner as DistFlct-AttorDey.
g#R CoNfupDy CHARGE.
This concluded The evidence this charge Consui'a-
taton among counsel theu settled that when Mr. Br'-
ton took the STAND he should testify upon each charge
separately thus avoiding as Mr. Cadwaade. said wha
Fish would have called "sobbering over" The hrst
supplemental chargethat in relation to the Conrauuy
perjury case-was then taken up Mr. Tracy said tha'
they would admit that there was an investigation pcIore
the Board of regard to the charges against
Sheriff Williams Mr.. Morris said that the admission ne
waited was that Conraddy perjnred himself Mr Tracy
was willing TO admit that be testified that the bill OF
sheriff williams was and that there had been no
frauds committed. Mr.. Cadwaliader then put in
evidence "a pages OF Conraddys evidence before the
Board Of Supervisors 81 pages OF the evidence OF stephen
II. Powell, and the testmony,o the Rev. John Woods.
TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL RoBEBTs.
Samuel Roberts member Of the Grand yury in Octo-
Der Of this year. testified cannot tell in exact words
the Conraddy charge came before u.s. we talked the
matter over and decided to hear wnat Mr. Morris had
to say; We called him. bu, did not make him take oath
he SAID he had charges to prefer against Conraddy for
iu and we asked II could hear what "A
man had 10 say without swearing bim; he SAID No :;
believe that after this formal complaint was sent III
against Conraddy for PERJURY We asked Btton to pnt
in writing certain questions for the Judge to the eject
that we wished 10 know II we couia Wing chasgcS
against COnraddy for perjury after he had been uted
witness the question which was pui to me Judge dld
not cover the ground we asked bliIon "hetneI o no
Conraddy could be indicted he said we could lndict
nim but it would be Of 10 use and that ne eonld go
rght lnt0 court ana gel some sor Oi Ptpo' au Ee,
him off the questions g0t from MI Brltton were nOf
put in writing there Mas Ess no aile iurtheF eh, &
decided that it would not he Of any use for
to do 80: what mean in giving BIton,s reply TO
question Is that he said we could indct Conrdddy
but tnat he Britonl could apply to the Court ana get
him out; the questions which Mr. brtton asked OF the
Court Tor us were not eAactS as We miflou @ aeI we
wanted him to ask whether we Copd ndlct man upon
charge when he had been pieyio9;sy used sea as "a
witness in other cases; the question asked ny
the Dstrict-AttorDey was, IN substance. whether,
if witness Is brought before the DistEctAuorney
in "A case where he almost appears 10 pe Pu"cefs
erinipS and subsequent complaints are made AGAINST
him. he be brought 10 stlldi; lht hlsWti III
stance, that the Judge did not know Of any rule
preventing from finding Indictment hut that Whcn
is used, in the case named lti with The
understanding that he is 10 be left ree himself ana
an indictment found the Dstrict-AttorucY wOnld
have apply for Holle Dy0ssQV eau state nothing
further To what part Mr Brttou tooN IN procuring OF
preventing the procuring OF an Indictment dont
recOllect exactly what said by him 10 the Grand
Jury after Mr. Morris had been there.
To Mr.. Cuen-lt was charge OF peIJuiy alleged TO
have been before the Board OF Supervisors where
he bad been examined As witness IN behalf OF the
Sheriff there were probably some Ietora sent To the
Grand Jury which brought the matter before then Mr.
Conraddy had been used witness before Ie charges
brought against him.
The question was then asked II this alleged perjury
was regarding the identical Transaction in regard to
which he subsequently examined "a witness be
fore the Grand Jury. Tins objected TO, and long
discussion followed but the witness finally answered
II, saying be thought 1t was He continued:
did not any written charges OF perjury we only
knew OF what Mr. Morris said, that he had charges Of
perjury against COnraddy we Thought u was some
Thing in relation to some matters OF Sheriff Williams.
TESTIMONY oFoTHER GRAND JURORS.
Noah F. Ives, another member OF the Grand Jury,
testified mainly regard TO the facts of Britons
nection with Conraddy Investigation. In to
the question, byiMr. Morris, 40 whether Mr. Britton
was anxious TO prevent an indictment against Con
raddy tho witness answered that ne did u't think he
manifested any feeling IN the Grand Jury room III the
courtroom: when IN the COURTROOM asking the ques-
the and facts OF the case then before the Grand
Jury.
H c. S. Jervs member Of the Grand Jury corrobo-
rated the testimony OF the TWO preceding Witnesses lie
said Mr. Morris into the juryrOom at TIE
quest Of the foreman while he there MI Britton
came in, nterruptng him in his charges 10 the witness
Mr.. BrtOn seemed 10 come IN IN very excited nasty
way in the juryrOOm II was understood that the charge
OF perjury was distinct and separate charge from that
on which Conraddy was before examined.
The prosecuting counsel here said that their
now closed, with the siuge exception Of the exanina-
ton of Judge Gilbert. II understood that he could
testify that at the time he that answer to the
Grand jury, he had knowledge OF the Circumstance,
OF the case As the defense stated that Judge Gilbert
would be- called on their side, and that opportunity
would then be given to examine him, the prosecution
was closed The defense will begin at II a. to-day.
DEPdRTMEET T{NUjCATED