New-York tribune., 1874-01-01
custody. and taken to the jail. by virtue of commit

meDt A.
He also testtnes that he knew heard Of any
other commitment until the afternoon Of Oct a. when
he saw statement in the hooklyn evening papers
return It ia clear that M. Brtton must nave known
annex commitment E. he Sheriff Wilam' wouId 10, nave @
refused. Mr.. Britton, In his evidence uOes nov pr
'n 1n %er sbanss had gone to NewYorE
In his evidence before Judge Fancner, Mr; brisson ~
distinctly admitted that he knew Una, op'n y % Pritton
have known that the sheriff would not permit hlm
commitment +, u. he the Sheriff. had that day made
return to the habsas corpus ad 6stneanau ph en nc
turns relate to the same tH,' same per-
the same tn time soai% and Consented 10 I that e com
mltmeut f he produced as part or ms
TO the habeas corpus allowed Dy Judge fanener
by law for MAKING false return Mr.. Briton testified
that at the time he obtained the permission OF the sheriff
BrtitonJ held commitment in lis hand, but did not
show it 10 the sheriff n NJ Brton did not intend 70
tdLsfy the SAerlFs returns chg fid ne mol ASK pH~ssoh
10 produce commitment h us part OF Utd1 retsTnf
THE FRAUDULENT INTENT.
The fraudulent intent OF Mr.. Brtton is clearly ana
emphatcay shown by the evidence OF Albert Daggett,
the Under Sheriff Mr.. Brtton made an attempt to sup
press evidence time when no left Commitment
with the Sheriff Mr.. Daggett on this subject testified
follows:
a,ied the commitment fRI W; received
des for the and could no; hna - be sn'sd
there record 10 the books told hn there vi"
record Of bat sort of paper the boo1G
that tins commitments vas reoveq R ia sS s SS9s s Tel rsYs
something Ike that, ard parsed out lpp. 43 and "a
; m no. I I, tSs sserF. oss no. rrmemlernr Tour memory
subject eI Of hs speaking about A. l
d.Dc, on .upscs, A. Yes Sir can connect
You the dsinci, with NJ Thorn do yOn'
A. g. can for word, ibilk.
0 STATE vhs sao % M Thorn Mr. TpoTn, rtrls
hole could get INTO on that ami that vas The
IL true thaI Mr. Brtton denies that he said this, yet
be admits enough confirm Mr. Daggetts testimony 10
this respect. Mr. Thorn received the paper Commit
n,ent III from Mr. BrttOn. Mr. BrttOn's object was to
induce Mr.. Thorn TO say that he IhornJ could not re-
member time when it was received. Mr. Dril1On
testihcs that he had conversation with Mr. DIgge on
TINS subject, the 2tn or OCTOBER DaSset SAYS ne
conversation occurred the 23d. MI Brtton tesIhss
that he asked Mr. Dlggett time he rlttOn left the
commitment there and that AIR DasEett e1iAintu
the books see If any memorandum Was made. Mr.
Daggett Gestes that they never entered such papers
on neir books anu eaAI nv H Ma T 1tto m Mr. Brton tes,
tines Oh thus subject ~ follows: ~
Tborn sad the hooks" We'll said then
Thorn viii probably r-menff' lie sad u ansNeI don ftsa
snvthae about the tine Then said J. VeU we'll thai
Mr. Britton says ne dIl not ask Mr. Thorn. with whom
he eft paper. what time he left IL II he wanted
To know tue precise left The paper at the Slerhs
office, why did he not asa Mr. Tnorni L. IS clear that
MIR. BrJons object was 10 ascertain whether there was
any meIuOrauuum Al the Office OF Tue snerh as
the time when the paper was lCtL Ihls ne ascef-
tained from Mr.. Ddggett.
Dagget had got the paper back ae1 ana ne saw tnat
there no Endorsement upon II OF tue time o. It's
MIR Brttou took II away 5 quick he, Thorn, had no
time indOrsnG upon II the time II was received.
That BrttOn, by producing commitment T. as part
of tue Suer-s return, intended him certify
20 Deliberate fasehOOd. appears By the return ITSELF
La tnat return the Sheriff made say that the writ
Of haJeas corpus ~ which TINS retUn Is made was
served uDon al officer charge OF said shanks IN the
CITY Of YORK duly authorized by me 10 take clarge
OF him. 5hduks, while neld Uy sdd olIrcr n
said city the SAID commitment produced by me-
TE1 As already shown, Nj. Button knew that the
spuy sheriff Stlwel. when the naDeas corpus allowed
Dy Judge Fancher was served upon MN, had no Otner
comm tment Jban exhibit A.
Mr. Clinton, In conclusion, said:
The charges made by Mr.. Shanks against District
Attorney BIitOn OF the most serious aud agra
waited character. Those charges clearly and over
whemingy established by tue evidence taken before
Judge Sper. Ia order 10 promote proper adnnistTa-
t,on Of Justice az the evidence before your
Exceency IL Is respectfully submitted that Mr. Btton
should be removed from the Office Of Dh;nctAItOlney
OF tue County Oh Kings.