New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-27
TIE CLOSING ARGUMENTS.


TIE CLOSING ARGUMENTS
The first witness called was John d. Far
,,pgon r one Of The defendants He testified that the
bll for Sl51ss 40 was made out from memorandum
handed h by T. A. Smith the witness for the prosecu
ton and by the direction OF the same person was maue
out In the name OF Heath Smith IL was Insersoh VINO
purchased the goods from the Heath Smith MauuIae-
turing Company and supplied them TO the CourthouSe'
Ingersos not 10 appear on the BILL as ne was
one of the Courthouse Commissioners the witness know
that the umbrella stands and other articles mentioned
IN the bill we're sent to the Courthouse; the signatures
10 The bill we're not his the cross-eXaminatOn oy NIX
1remain the witness admitted that while he was en-
ployod in sugar refinery some years ago. he ran away
and went 10 g. Louis. lnquiries were made ioe moneys
collected lv him. aud because there was defauer IN
the Company, he had to away. He Afterwards De-
eorDe connected with the Heath smith MANUFACTURING
C9prauy but not through the influence OF InSersoil
lie got checks from Iugerso because he was in want OF
money. He would not swear that he made more than
one bill. Heath told him 10 put on good square per
ceufage aud he Put on so per cent.
O. Did you then willingly consent 70 he party to
N ke out bill defraud the County OF one-hau OF
s!t,OOOi a. don't know so per cent TO be fraud;
done know IL to be fraud at all to sell the goods ana
get my money.
o. Did YOU know the accounts had been delivered
A. 1 supposed they were.
O Did Won then think il honest to add 50 per cent?
Judge DAVIS said that point might be left to the jury
TIE witness remembered that umorea-stands ana ASH
kettles were ordered for the Courthouse, hut nothing
further e many 80 of the stands IN the
Courthouse 70 Nj. Fullerton he explained the reason
OF his GIT from the sugar refinery saying that he was
employed there as boy collect bills, and the man
became defauIter and be was obliged TO run because
he could not provo his innocence letter from H. A.
IIoath to Farrng.on directing him TO perform certain
duties was offered IN evidence as proving that he was
employed by the company aud not by lngersoll Far
IugiOu then positively denied that he had sgned ether
the bill or the warrant.
THIS closed the case for heidefense Roland A. Robin
son Of tho firm Robinson, LOr Co., called In rebuff
tai testified that the goods sold by them In 1870 were
charged TO the Heath Manufacturing Company Il. A.
Heath was recalled and testified that he never gave
Earring any statement from which to make out this
bill he never told him to put on good square per
oeDtage he never saw tie bill until Mr. Taintor showed
It 10 hm short time before the complaint was made TO
the Grand jury.
MI TaintO who was IN court corroboratsd the state
uent Gs showing the bill TO the witness Heath fur
Their said that nc had any such conversation with
Farriuston IngcrsOn bought the umbrea-stands and
paid for them Mr. Bird recalled and testified that
these uubralastau charged 20 Ingerson; Far
rugton used tell him that he independent OF any
one there as Jimmy" paid. This closed the case on
both sides. and the summing up began.
MR.. FULLERION's REMARKS
Mr. Fullerton in beginning his address to the Jury
charge against the defendants was IL was not for
making fraudulent bill or for getting money fraud
uenty from the city. The question was whether the
name OF Heath & Smith upon the back of the warrant
vas forged whether these persons, knowing 1t to be
forged bad uttered It, Mr. Fullerton reviewed the cir
ClnsaUccs OF the case the formation OF the firm OF
Ileath & smith and their dissolution, and the continual
ti,u OF the same business by the Heath smith manu-
featuring Company with IngerSOli us It's Pres
dci.t. There was no proof that inGerson bought
sold goods for the Company; he had bought
romc o the Company. He had little to do with the
business aud not familiar with the forms or prices
Cf the q t,eos. This bill made out by harrington,
ne had given them the history OF It, That history
Heath, true denied. Fdrr ngtOn told them that
Hcitu brought MN memorandum on t%o or Intee
sps 81 paper and told him 10 make out this account in
harrington was a clerk under Heat's control. Heath
also contiadeted by Ives. II was UNNECESSARY to
f4ere we're who testified to belief that
vas ,Stogetber untfnstwort6y Expert testimony was
VIGOROUSLY OF little worth In the light OF the contra
Og vo4e had ns ia c. write sGo@
IL was proved that this company did furnish
70 the That psSn %a 0Rp ngrso he
put at tue head Of his own bill Heath Smith, and
crime was not forgery And they would remember that
Heath gave bis consent to the use OF has name Do not
every probability point 20 Heath himself having pre-.
scented this bill and got this warrant aud then handed
over 70 Ingersol Inc counsel expis3ed Mr.
whom he had paid over what ne had collected hsd be-
mere mistake 10 counseIs J9oginssno 81. , ,hO,
Mr.. Fullerton was then compelled 10 SIT oown throngh
81 attack OF vertigo aud the Courtook It's usual recess
Mr.. TRRMAISs REPLY.
Upon the reassembliug OF the Court Mr.. Tremsn pro.
ceeded up for the people He explained the In
dctuent showing that 1t contained one count for for
gerry aud utering forged paper He said that 1T was
not necessary that both should have written the forgery
or both should acted in utterng It, II they acted
IN completely with each other signing and the other
advising IL 10 the other to utter, this
iOut forgery and Joint utterng under which both were
guilty. OF they cOnld produce proof Of the
actual writing by the defendants The proof must al
most always circumstantia The possession OF forged
paper unexplained was enough, and men were con
stsntly convicted OF uterng forged paper knowingly
on that alone They had fret OF ALL the fact that James
m InRersO was officer In high position, and that he
certified that he had audited the bill Had he examined
This whole account is false and these knew IT, They
have robbed county of $4,000 and one OF them
A. omen 10 the thieves This forged warrant uttered
by Ingersoli. You have before you man holding
public Office who not only fails TO audit the account 0ut
helps Il through and then, not content WIN "a per cent
goDbes" up inc whole. The explanation that has
been given IS than One defendant has told
how no made out the bill and will not swear that ne
ever made out another Mr. Iremain skotched the life
Of Farrugton When he asked about adding so per
cent TO the b answered that ne did not think very
dishonest The testimony OF the witnesses on both eues
we'd Tue pretended defense Is that account
was made out the name Of Heath smith, because
Iugers0 did want 20 be known that no was FUR
nishDg the supplies for the Courthouse. They had no
right ~ use the OF Heath Smith, IL Is just as
plain forgery made. When II Is iOuno that
one makes up the fraudulent bill aud the other
draws the forged warrant who douot that 1t Is the
result OF cODpcity between themi Mr. Tremain spoke
al length the failure OF the defense TO produce the
books and guea that the weakness II the defense
stronger condemnation than the strength Of the prose
scuti0n
THE CHARGE.
Judge Davis told the jury what they as
-. ...,,., kpow ~ che NJ thu O..