The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-01-08
GEORGE D. LORDS TRIAL.
THE TESTIMONY OFTOHN HA4D AND
THdDDEUS q. DAVIS.

THE TESTIMONY OFToHN HA4D AND
THADDEUS q. DAYS.
The Defence Pleading the statute Of IImita-
tions-Aiss, that Lord wns not au Of1cer
when the Alleged offence wns Committed.
BUFFALO, Jan. TN the trial OF George
ID. Lord to-day. Lewis J. Bennett under cross
examination. testified as follows;
The annn, g?g foT on tG yfOH' =, ,s sS'i si
cni OF tue cngnecr lase no recoliecion OF eeclng
M5 iannT aiier ns examna5lo9 ,, eos d. an nnder
ns 81 o d hH & Sys ve np oeg
sCna assurance from Toe District 4 'tcrney.
John Hand OF Amsterdam testified "a follows
came 70 Buffil1 ln 1893, and moved away f. 1873
three "o9ir,ets sken m M, name iwitnes Ss shown
the Emo Basin. ONO BASIN ana Black Rocs conirac s.
TIio hisG coitrict istated J, g. 1858 We began
work s.ortr alter. Also begn WORK soon after the
payment on the onto rasin coon attcr completing the
Rock arhof contracts the WORK was not computed
10 SS ,fe ngs 5o ' % G Br winter
Tue Ics.sSrc becfe % William IbS' j. ri'S IL V % the 7ta o.
:GoSn v,ac nave seen S'S Paper, ike aDs' t5ssc
'~ coSs SRe Sd, Si ee;e ,y S snpe 9s DAY
wee ,lgnedst NJ Renaeit's request. gave I, back 70
paper since. Up to the time this was signed yer
eSTpepssons s % II WIS SottV @ sier | singing The papci
thNt Mr. Spauluug cal ed attention q the aW.
Bennett
TnE ACTIVE MAN or THE CONCERN.
was sworn before the Comm sslon ti-arned Of
neeiin, the Comms-,ja,r, here in Juy 1871,
Tue s sisS@ to ac is eeep de 'i Dee R' a. ISL
are mine. MN sisna,ure WAS attached At tc onice. Mr.
MI Lord Rgd NJ Il ~ D,ni s.t to,d me there we're
so ds ,'s scn ne M or nS them rSanS and aRS oa
ne to siSn tacm un r. h.cs. did -, ana he put
ih,ard poihihg taid aoout the amount the award.
NJ otu t1a h.niuS 70 me ,nSet, 10 tei M 70 M sish
sOoa, me time q Their date .sS Lord shortly Sitsf
paper. that, he wanted me to ssn. Before signed
them he spoke OF the papers had signed before and
& d n, Here n9d ,ee s, 99es ,sned % ns the 95her
back Iwoudnt % IT, He saii ,hey were Of no use to
IN the NEE obE went TO Xlbsny having sot letter
a i,en Bennett asking Te 10 So Il w1i . dated fee9
!ure. lnevsr siEn such paper this II my name
swear to Ss paper ,ae same way diG aoi Sign T. or
@ Gs Pso s' o & & The eSe wa :sSSs a s sSs
same day slgncd It, 1have interest in tho nri Of
sigaed my interest to B,nastt
THABDEUs c. DAvIs's TESTIMONY.
Thaddeus Z. Davis, Of Buffalo, Canal Ap-
praiser. was the next witness. lie testified
presert at the meeting - the Canal Com.
missoneis Sh,n claim VA presented un 'er the
stroud and l'srA ey ne meeting va, hel a. my once
| Comnis. ner Prior to thit tim nad osen engaged
| by Mr.. lcrnsti to collect isom Nj. L.td nougs
bennett claim,d. / think ths was In JAY
.ad sa TO-, c to uRS1 maze ar collection SIa -Sd o
The noneI, 10 tne amount o. oboai 30 900 belonging
pease. "a sgd eSnssgu n.y s'd none one to & psf gHP
Rs gre sres Sut Lord ssid he had not ceeeted sne
money Ny mpres,ion /, Ne said inat II had not oecn
d % % ous % s s; Mr Bennett .f T"s sr,pd @ ST pne mater
some tine Before S' the % m o3sT met ia Bu1S
Mr. - rsd me 100 NJ ~ ,omc oGd oisr trss ~,
9id me nov meen he would lay, and | ADVISED Mr.
FOR 70 Bennett s so' w. se M is II. Z, buy no, ar IN
line He came to ne aud got Sj.oOJ.
WAITING FoR WITNESSES.
! Papers we're then placed IN evidence showing
! TIE election uf MIR. Lord to nc Assembly.
Nj. Humphrey said that no expected some
| other witnesses from Rochester and Albany this
afternoon, aficr waich the prosecution would
Mr. Cogswell said the defence desired to refer
to every d-y OF the Legislative session Of 1871
was present aud voted. lie then submitted tuat
| there no evidence IN the case as It now
stands which would JUSTIFY the jury Ia render
ing verdict Of guilty. The statute Of 1859 pro-
vided that there shall ne no conviction for hrb-
| offence, except II Was coIroOorated Dy other
AT this point Mr. Humphrey said he
| had omitted to call one witness, aud would Ike
| to do so now.
Andrew spaulding Of Buffalo testified;
| know Berpett and John Hand. member Of
ss arm IN 9s;s con, co9rSe. have know9 0Fp since
sst papers s,snsd oy aand IhGs T wa, ~ III hs fore
art oi the session Hand and LORD ana myself were
;isssa mem 30 RS' SNOW wn., va. doas WIN them;
TO sign pspefs. was present only on occasion.
PoINTs ny The DEFENCE.
| Mr.. Cogswcll then continued his argument.
He claimed tnat member II the Assembly was
| not person holding office WITHIN the statute,
| until he had taken tue constitutional oath. On
the 30 OF January Mr.. Lord took tins oath lie
| submitted that the evidence would not warrant
| the jury In finding that the agreement testified
| TO by Bennett WIS after the Sd OF J.nuary, Isl.
| inal offence committed. MIR. Bennet. q evidence
as to the time OF the agreement was Unreliable.
| Counsel submitted tnat Lere was no evidence
| that THIS conversation which Ia claimed to be
| the offence took place until after The meeting Of
SOP holding once, and hot llabe for oficlll
bribery. Mr. Bsnnett's statements as to the
time Of the asreement were SO loose that no
d nnite time could be liked, and he was conf
dent the Court would not give the case to tue
jury to say, peradyenture the agreement took
| place sfter Jan. l, ISL. MIR. Cogswell then sMd
statute Of Limitations which ne believed would
| arrest this prosecution. Ills position was that
thc act Of 1850. Ueing in force When the ALLEGED
offence was committed. must apply TO the mud
| ing OF the Indictment, ana not tho statute OF
| lsih He then entered into an argument OF some
lensth as u mo c0hstrdctlon OF these statutes,
| ct imlng that tae statute OF 1873 was not Tetsp-
| spcctivc. Tue Arguments uscd were sub-t n
| tlally the sane as tnoso presented before Juuge
| CLINTON on tho motion 10 sinkc Out the speDi a
plea, Upon the grounds stated be asked tue
Court to diroct verdict Of acalttal.
Ihe COur. adjourned unil : o'clock p NJ.
DECISION AGAINST TIE DEFENCE.
At the afternoon session Judge Daniels de-
| lvetcd, ,cGtcnipufaneouslN, IA lengthy decision,
| dcnying tue motion 10 ctsCh1rge the prisoner
| under tue statute Of limitations, holding suh-
| stdntaliy That the statute was not necessarily
| retrospective, a. applied To THIS case that tue
! three years allowed unucr the old law not hav-
ing expired when the statute OF limitations OF
| 1913 was enacted, the case became subject 10
the provision Of the latter, which repeated the
! former
Mr. Cogswell opened tho case for the defence.
At the close OF MIR. Cogswel = address, MIR. Lon
Ing said that they had not as yet decided on
their line OF defence, their time having bt en- so
| occupied In the progress of the case, and asked
| the Court Tor time until tomorrow morning,
which was granted, until which tine the couIL
| adjourned.
Deimonico Outriynlllng DcInOnico.