New-York tribune., 1876-02-26
THE COURTS.
THE TWEED CIVIL SUIT.
TESTIMONY OF BANK ACCoUSTs-GOv. TILDEN AS A



WITNESS
The trial of the suit for $4,000, 900 against
Tweed resumed yesterday, ia the supreme C"nrt'
Circuit, before Judge westbrook but the whole morning
session taken up IN receiving testimony as TO the
details of the Of the members Of the Ring
during which of the jurors were reading ne~spa
pers, and all except one or two appeared Thoroughly
tired OF this branch OF the testimony The audience Was
large however, it known that Gov Tflden was In
the building and might appear at moment For the
time during the trial, there ladies among the
audience A. Parkhurst, Arthur f. Smith, Arthur j.
Rice and Mr. Porter. clerks and telers in 1870 In the
Broadway Bank, AMI Nr. Palmer. its Presdeni,
were the chief witnesses In he morning first four to
identify entries the banks books. and the last two to
show where the deposit tickets were lost James H.
lngersol recalled produce his other bank books
the only thing elected that he had other dealings
With Mr.. Tweed in which he gave him checks for
743,5O0, In the course Of 1869 1870, 1871.
Immediately the Gov. 1ilden came Oh the
with AZ stand The room was filed to the utmost At
once and the opening window near those standing
behind the railing failed to make any impression lhee
general movement OF anticipation andexpectatUh'
and this had subsded the court was called 10
orIer and Gov. Tlden was sworn. His testimony was
mainly follows:
In the Fall OF 1871 he examined the 100 warrants
known as county audit warrants 80 Of which are the
subject Of this action lie examined the bank accounts
Of Tweed Ingcrsoll. Woodward GGryey and the New
York Printing Company, the Broadway Bank, from
May q, 1870, 10 sept l. 1870. lie the deposit tick
rts at the bank. From them % memorandum was made
by clerks under his direction, and verified by himself
He had four clerks who did OF the details bn h.
attended 10 tie inpNrtant points himself. lie was askh
10 the contents OF IngcrsOPs deposit tlcke OF NAV
1870. Mr.. fird objected That the depusu TICKETS were
not showh To be lost ani, that objection being 0NeiIun
objected to the witness using the printed schedule oI tn
deposit tickets, paper IN any haid"rluhg eAco
lus own 10 refresh bls memory. Coy ILuIh
stated that the cOry for the printed schedule
prepared by himself and he hal carefully comparcd
the printed matter The Court decided that he mght r.
II. He then from these
pOsit tickets Of IngersOll & Co. GarNey, No0dWard
Tweed and Others each dy b lug thc same ~ NE
=. IN scrsol Co. ticRet ha t~0 Items. S3il % az"
So 95i ~, together being 99iJ7 j.. NuOI"ards d-
csii ticket that day had only one etn r32'"b " IN
lhs why lie went through cacn day when there were en-
deposits I'm ne gave n-uffS nov III
clude iu the printed schedule they being depos's nav
ng relation Ia the ~ audits warrants "r the
checks from the mcmDr III the Rlng Ihis D. occss went
Jn very .t..iy until TIE NcNluik liihll"s 1oI-
duS posts reached, when M ffd Ia 2'h ~"
objection thlt there evidence as to any hniro-
prey iu any account uf thai Company.
~. Prckham sai there evidence as 10 that, and
the Flowed the questions 10 he Tu win lcAV" 10
move 10 -tthr trin "u unless rNdtht" shotl ID; gwen
aftcr shown to bu.u given ds 10 their iarty
lr FIrd preceding 10 argue TIE qu"s.'On aStlH'
when Nr. ta.r. asked II there Mds To DE no rhd o 10"
argument: Mr. Fled, in reply said: Argument Their
none. Yes, t.'ic wa Oh INt'u I"c'I' lNt'u
That enough for ever! tlInS. like red rag To IA
ball.
CIV Tideu continued h- testimony as to the contents
,f Tie deposit uckcS, and en.rd tha hrdnch % ne t'i
drncc aitI Ucuck, hen TIE CONT was a'1ouihc
ul,il liundas at noon. TIE analysis AM comparison oi
tr accounts showing tie pcr-e 4trs received AMI DIS
trluutrd SHOWN hy tLc dc f,t t,hrt+, " ~ P"D'DJ
bc tue subject vi Coy. Ihde'- testimony OH NOhGiJ