New-York tribune., 1873-01-16
THE TWEED TRIAL.
ALLEGED FRAUDULENT VOUCHERS BEFORE
THE JURY.

Deputy Controller Richard A. StOus was
acain piaeed on the witness stand yesterday in the
Tweed case. and his testimony was secured us TO the
identity OF certain vouchers submitted by tho prosecu-
tion with those found by him in the Controllers ohce
Very little else was DONE the numerous arguments
and objections nterposcd by the couse for the defense
occupied most Of the day. Mr.. storrs still upon the
stand when the Court adjourned Great interest IS stu
manifested IN the proceedings and the audience yeste
day was fully as large any preceding day.
At the opening OF the Court Mr. nemain eed the case
Of The People agt The Supervisors of Chenanso County
70 confirm the impression OF the Court that tho absence
certificate of presiding officer Secretary Oh s'"'e
was presumptive, and not conclusive evidence Us "
whether a constitutional majority had voed ior p'i
The statute under which Supervisors were appoeu
was then considered road and exceptions were 'en
by the defense The defense then nterposed ne" oo
lection insisting the indictment alleges that 'ne
act Office aud conferred II on 'he ueleuun,
the prosecution should estopped from holding as they
had DONE that 1t is not new ONCE luis ou'e'on was
also oyeTruled, and an exception TAKEN
Mr. storrs testified nearly as follows:
an, assistant In the Controllers Office and have been
since ISL ~ , ig% aS %g MayoP Re6ard b. Connolly Con-
troer aud william NJ Tweed President or the Board OF
Supervisors; have looked for papers pertaining 20 the
acts OF the Board OF Audit, and have found some OF
theIu.
TIE witness produced the resolution Of the Board Of
Audit written by Mayor Hall and signed by Connolly
and Tweed which authorized the auditing by Watson
and Young and which the only act of tho Board
The paper was then offered in evidence. hr. Graham
Objected to it, and reasoned that not set out in the
Indictment should have been. They were entitled
TO know what were the elements Of the prosecution
They Objected on this ground 1t the first act
of crimnaty IL should been set forth In the ill.,
dictment Their failure audit was only an advance
oeut OF their resolution not to do their duty lie would
call this growing out of their agreement not 10
act
Judge Davis in overriding this objection, stated that
there was any crime it would be in the nature
Of a conspiracy This may be taken as preliminary evil
dence.
The paper was then read, and the witness stated
further that some vouchers found in September
1871 At the time they discovered Mayor Hall was
with him. Mr.. Peckham here produced number OF
vouchers which shown to the witness and ident
ned S those found by him.
Az the time, resumed the witness, gave them
casual examination; they were found in the proper
pgeOnholes in County Bureau; the first voucher
contains the signatures Of Hall, Connolly and Tweed;
the warrant is stamped by the bank paid his was
offered evidence. the exception OF the warrant
and Mr. Graham interposed objecton) The vouchers
and warrants are kept in separate places
To Mr.. Graham-I was not charged with the custody
Of these papers; had nothing to do with them what
ever.
Mr. Grahau-We object TO the first page Of this as not
showing that 1t connected with Mr. Tweed ana the
only portion the second page which can be read IN
evidence is the signature Of Mr. Tweed Whether there
was any other writing matter Of presumption They
have got TO show this certificate which Mr. Tweed
subscribed was there before put his there. The
Court viii perceive that all they introduce as evil
dence what they prove there at the time MI
Tweed signed It. II they have the signature of VIM
Tweed the Controllers office, they can write just
what they choose over IT, and prove him guilty Of any
crime they desire The law presunes that to have been
blank sheet when Mr.. Tweed signed 1t, unless 1t is
proved 10 the contrary.
Judge Days-I there is any presumption it that that
vrftov TrVaad sic Uned
belongs him TO show that some one else committed
crime. The objection is oyeTued.
Mr Graham-we object the filing Of the certificate
OF audit being read until it is shown to have been there
before it was signed (OverruledJ Anything that fol-
lows on the strength the certificate OF audit OBJ
Mr PecShsa then explained the different papers
prising the voucher for one OF keyser Co.'S pls tor
t529C6 for iron work on the CITY Han ~ was then
fense the introduction Of the warrant or payment
signed by the Mayor and Controller on the ground that
the defendants signature TO the dG nor neces
sarlly result IN the warrant that oelng product Oh
majority of the Board Judge DAVIS admitted the war
rant as proof that what already done upened into
M. Field wanted to know under which count this
evidence offered. To settle the question, the
Court sent for the original Indictment, and finally
decided that the evidence was competent under
either count. The warrant was read Another
voucher was handed 10 the witness, when MI;
Graham again objected. The Court, nc said, mad
ruled that there only one ofense Dnt the prqSeen
ton was trying to accumulate many offenses Judge
Davis said that he lad held that where proof was onLGd
many misdemeanOrs united, when II came 10 punish
for onv one ofense. He must overrue the objection,
and give them the benefit Of the exception
SEVERAL VOUCHERS EXAMINED.
The witness then examined the signature OF the
ond voucher, as had the first The same questions
were asked and the same objections made This was Tor
another OF Keyser Co.'S bills for s278s7 3s. All of the
vouchers produced were for bills OF Keyser Co.
Voucher No. 8 met with the objections The amount
Of tins voucher Sl692i 60. Voucher No resem0ed
the preceding ones only the words we hereby Gertfy
were omitted the Endorsement being that OF William NJ
Tweed The amount Of tins was SlgsIO H. Ihe ueehse
objected this, TO the others voucher no o IOi
Same rOutlue Voucher for S44,33S 81, met with
the additional objection that there were some apparent
One Of the apparet alterations entry Of 200 bar
res OF some article charged at two shngs per barrel
carried 5000. Voucher No y Tor S224 s3, was e1
amlned offered in evidence, and objected TO. -
A bin was produced, dated July s. TO which Mr. Field
Sued mat il was oniy as President of the Board
pervlsors that the defendant was made AUDITOR but ne
ceased 10 President Of the Board the Court held
on July therefore the prosecution had no rght 10
charge him with any act as Auditor after that date.
Judge Davis said that his ruling was that II mar is
not an officer de lure and negects or refuses to perform
aduty he is not able but the case derent where
man IS officer dc taeto he was ehargeaoie LOT I'M
Another objection urged that the defendant
Ssaed eS me 20 81 De ays Or when he
appointed 10 adjust the city accounts and that
the office ceased the held that the defendant
did carry the office with him out OF the Board OF sn
There cannot persons in possession Of the same
office at the time.
Judge Davis-TheTe There are two Deputy Cham
berlalns In this city, and there can pe oniy one oy ia"
One must be de tttre and the other de JdctO. -,
Mr.. F1eld-NO, Sir. Mr.. Tweed went ON as Auditor.
Mr. Hall in possession President Two men
not be Ia possession at the time and cannot
Judge Davis-A man who undertakes the duties under
eclaim 70 office must be held TO the consequences II
crnlnally responsible this principle
go on and hear this case.