The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1876-02-16
The Rabcock Trial.

ST. LOUIS, February 15.-Upon the
opening Of the Babcock trial, the Govern
nent counsel notified the court that fur
ther testimony would reach here from
Washington tomorrow respecting the dis
patches Of Joyce TO Babcock Of December
3D. and the one from Babcock to Joyce OF
December Sth, 1874, which have not yet
been admitted. The court also gave mo-
tice TO the counsel that they would not
pass on the admissibility Of the Avery tel
eCrams until the defence had an opportu-
nifty to present evidence that Ayery's
name was known to the grand jury and
was not included in the Indictment nam-
ing the c0nspirators. One objection TO
the Avery telegram, that it was shown
that Avery was in the conspiracy, was
overruled, as the kilograms themselves
tended to show that. ..rn
Beyis, the distiller, was pub upon the
stand, and testified that Joyce showed
him the Sylph dispatch from Babcock in
1874, and that his understanding from it
was that the revenue agents were not COM
ing, and on the strength Of this conlirma-
ton preparations were made TO run
crooked. When Joyce showed the wit.
ness this dispatch he told him that every
thing was all right and to go ahead.
Witness continued-Joyce showed me
Il letter about three or four days after l
saw the dispatch. l asked him for it and
he gave II to me. / wanted to satisfy my
partner that it was all right. l got it in
the morning and returned it in tue alter
noon.
The defense objected to witness stating
what was in the letter, or how il was ad-
dressed, or even the post mark.
The court ruled that the letter itself
was primary evidence and secondary
evidence could not be admitted until it
could be proven that the letter could not
be produced.
Mr.. Bcyis was asked the effect Of the
letter on him and the defense objected,
but it was overruled.
The witness said that the letter satisfied
him that il was all right and that we would
not be disturbed in making illicit whisky.
c. B. Fraser, a partner Of the previous
witness was called, and he stated that
Beyis showed him the letter mentioned in
his (Beyis) testimony in December, 1874,
and that the effect OF 1t was that their
house had recommended making illicit
whisky.
On the cross.examination of this wit
ness he said lie was pretty well acQuaint-
ed with Hoge, the revenue agent 10 whom
the ring money had been paid, but could
not tell Just when he began 10 serve the
ring nor how he was seduced into its SER
vice. Witness received various letters
and kilograms from Hoge; some OF the
letters were signed Bixley; .recollected
going TO Cincinnati TO meet him on one
occasion in response to telegram. Hoge
kept the ring pretty well advised OF the
movements OF the revenue agents, and
was generally considered as working con-
scientiously in the cause in which he had
been retained. Witness was shown let
ter, the writing on which he identified as
that OF Hoge, but he never saw or even
heard OF the letter before.
s. N. Barton, agent for or manager Of
Bingham Bros distillery, then took the
stand and testified 10 having contributed
in April, 1875, s., 500 to fund Of S. 900,
which was to go TO Joyce. He had
conversation with Joyce regarding the
purpose to which that money was put.
MIR. Storrs-Now, il it is proposed 10
commit the defendant by this conyersa'
tion, we object.
Colonel Dyer-Well, sir, we propose
to do so.
Mr.. Storrs--Then we object.
Judge Dillon-Do you seek TO show by
this evidence the declarations OF Joyce in
connection with this transaction 10 i'm
plicate the defendant?
Col. Dyer-1 do.
Col. Brodhead-Ycs sir. Upon the
principles Of the ruling in the Mckee
case in regard to Leorenworths declara-
tions they are the same precisely. | don't
see any difference in the subject TO your
ruling. ,.u
Judge Dillon-Yes sir, the difference
would be this. In the Mckee case we re-
auired the defendants in connection with
the conspiracy to be established before
we received the declarations.
Mr.. Storrs-An important difference.
Col. Brodhead-I was going TO remark
that I did not understand the Court to re-
ouire us to show that in the Mckee case,
but only told us that it would be better
that we had all our own testimony in be-
fore introducing il.
Judge Dillon-Which was done?
Col. Brodhead-Which was done.
Judge Dillon-And then we allowed
the declarations to go in evidence?
Col. Brodhead-0f course, il your
Honor so decide that that was the ruling.