The New York herald., 1874-12-30
THE CUSTOM HOUSE SMUGGLING
CASE

CASE.
TIE further hearing Of the case OF David p. Har-
ris, Custom House officer. who Is indicted for
having been engaged in the smuggling OF large
quantities oil cigars from Hlvana, was resumed
Yesterday in the United States Circuit Court, No.
q Chambers street. before Judge Benedict and the
jury. Nr. A. II. Purdy, United States Assistant
District Attorney, conducted the prosecution, and
MessIs. 5. G. Courtney and Joel B. Erhardt de-
tended the accused.
The examination OF Francisco Avellaner was re-
sumed oy Mr. Purdy, United States Assistant Dis
,rlct Attorney. For tie purpose OF corroborating
tie statements OF the witness Mr.. Purdy offered
IN evidence bills showing that the witness tad
purchased quantities OF cigars IN Havana Ir
Courtney, counsel Tor the accused objected 10 the
reception on these oils in evidence as they were
intended. SAID, only to bolster up The state
meuts already made by tie witness. Judge Beue-
diet allowed the papers TO go IN. The witness
then went on to state that on occasions wnen he
was gong 10 Cuba he informed Harris, the defend
ant, OF his Intention TO 40 so; Harris told hin to
Captain and Puf ser OF tnat vessel. and that when
be get To Havana 70 write TO MIN iOr the purpose
OF IN osmng him when he would be coming back;
when atness dld come back he met Harris at the
wharf, Harris told him 10 take his small things
with HIN, ana that he would send hls trunks con-
talu,ng cigars to his (Avellanct'sl lodgings in
the Spanish Hotel, In Bond street. This was dOne
ana subsequently, Harris. calling up there, had IN
latter giving Harris money Tor passing his cigars
through. This Is tae substance OF Ayel!anet's tes-
1lfnCuy HIS crOSs-eEaI uatlOU Udu DOL COQciEQeQ
when the Court adjourned, at three O'CLOCK until
this morning.
THE KELLY-WATERBURY LIBEL SUIT.
Another nstalment of the argument on the
motion to strike out portions OF the answer IN the
Kelly. aterbury libel suit was given yesterday in
Supreme Court, Chambers. before Judge Dono-
hue. In order TO give the opposing counsel am
pie opportunity to say all they wished to say in
the case the Court convened at ten O'Clock, Judge
Dorohue no doubt, thinking tue lawyers, alter
what had already been said. would exhaust what
remained OF the subject by noon. In this be
proved to be mistaken Ex-Judge Waterbury
managed to finish his argument, left incomplete
at the previous hearing. but ex Judge Porter, who
followed, had OILY larly got IN meGos res wien
Judge Donohne reminded him that lie would have
TO defer his conclusion Till Tomorrow morning.
Judge Waterbury having read his printed an.
swer and commented on 1t as he went along, con-
tlnued-l notice mat parties In the interest Of the
pn go IL hs m 'ne ns e Mem oSSn %s
mite. | VISA TO know how we could 90 50, with
the exception OF one or TWO trlnlag points. The
real grievance Is inar the answer Is LOO definite,
and brings lortn agaiu and maintains TO be true,
the letter alleged 10 be fpellons. The plaintlr
comes IN and says ne has been hbelled, ana SETS
forth the letter. and makes certain quotations
irom 1t, and the defendant meets hum ana says he
viii prove IL; and the plaintiff comes TO you and
asks you to cut or the defendant from main tanning
his defence. rs to my motives, have right
from the imputatlon OF malice. My adversaries
say, you say Kelly and Morrssey were managing
secret oath-bound society for the purpose OF
controlling the elections, and that is- ILLOGICAL, Tor
Mr.. Haveneyer had no connection with TAM
many MAINTAIN that the answer is logical and
just. As Mayor Mr.. Havemeyer hai right 10 look
after the interests OF the citizens and nave gen.
era oversight OF everything that bore on the ad-
ministration OF pubic affairs. Now, II through this
machinery there was secret power governing This
city and putting forth the Will OF two men IN SUBJ
nenne ena az ' these two men were governing sne
city In all Its Judicia and executive departments,
and seeking ana Claiming tnrouga this machinery
arbitrary power, wasn't 1t . matter that bore on
the public interests. and wasn't II the duty of
Mayor Havemever 70 bring before the public that
one, at least, VI these two men, seeking Iower
over the cary degrading to it-snoud ne not pub
lsh the fact OF these lrauds and can the defendant
be shut out from showing that the painIin was
exercising sucn power, ana that Mayor Have.
meyer mad become possessed of the knowledge
That plaintiff was an unworthy and corrupt man
] have no such harrow idea OF the Mayors power
TO say tBat ne could not puollsh these nicts be-
cause they may not happen 10 Affect nim specially
and personally. tie nad pubic duty 10 perform,
and he mad right 10 call ON his own friends to
assist MIN in the performance OF that dutf; and
although his stout heart, clear mead end resolute
courage DO not survive 10 aid 10 the war against
corruption and fraud which he inaugurated, the
duty devolves on this defendant to MAINTAIN the
truth or THESE charges In justice alike TO the living
and the dead, and that duty vii be faithfully pei
formed.
Judge Porter-My learned opponents claim that
the defendant cannot exercise his constitutional
right OF IustiIylns the truth OF the accusation,
that the plaintiff can take the extracts on which
he relies from paper not produced and then
deny the defendant the right TO produce 1t and
Prove 1t to DC true. He claims $4,000 for the pub
iication OF this paper, end yet he would not have
him Justify his motion or prove ii TO be true.
Under the code the defendant has alleged the mat
ter charged to bc ibelious to be true, aud the mo-
ton mere is TO strike cut that qualification and to
deny the defendant his legal right 70 the tnter-
vention oil the Court on an ex parte trial In which
he sEall be stripped OF hs defence, but no such at
tempts shall succeed before Your Honor or any
Judge am convinced. The plain tH Is at liberty to
demur unless the matters alleged In the wer, II
true, constitute q complete defence, and the
plalntit has not chosen to claim that, and they
have admitted FOR the purpose OF this proceeding
Justification. Whether II is true or not is to be
determined in a nlsi prius trial That 1t Is com
pete defence Is admitted by The omission 10 de-
mur and the result to the motion, which comedies
the ans wer TO be true and only says that 1t con-