New-York tribune., 1876-01-07
THE LORD TRIAL.

IfSIlhON1.
BUFFALO, N. Y, Jan. 6.-The Court con-
veaed this morning pursuant to adjournment eICanal
Commissioner Bsrkley upon the witness stand He tes
titled crossexaminaton that Mr.. Lord had nothing to
do with the claim under investigation so far as he Know
and that Mr.. Lord spoke him the subject.
The next important witness VIM. II. Bowman OF
Rochester, who testified In part a follows:
Am an attorney; have known George ID. Lord from
boyhOod; have done business for and with him; was EN-
plOyed In matter Of his before the Canal Board and
a meeting Of Commissioners in Buffalo in November,
1874, at the Office OF Davis trying claim before
| the Board.
| The question was asked. "who employed your Mr..
Laning objected. Overruled. The witness continued;
was shown paper by Geo ID. Lord, which purported
to De contract between HAND anu heny tHs was m at
turned it to Mr. Lord do not think have seen 1t since
time after and spoke to the COMMISSIONER asking them
| to hold meeting mere; IL was under the hand act
aa' oe of claim he%lns %1 to P' spoFs to Mr.
and Mr. stroud do not think Mr. Hand was IN Albany
Buffalo and met the Commissioners here prepared no
papers To be submitted to the Board there we're 10 pro-
think Messrs. Douglas Bennett, Richardson and Cornell
witness also Behn next went to Albany, about
| missioners to ask them to mako the award when
closed the evidence here. Bennett was asked II ne
could make any written statement thls was teisteu
by Commissioner Johnsonand was presented at Albany
eTnor's Commission at Albany there was no statement
presented at the meeting here; first saw the statement
at Rochester; II sent To by Bennett; ; MT LOfd
had spoken 70 Inc about the matter ana before the meet
ing held mere; could NOT say whether IL came Dy
in " to hi. time % had no eommmni,
cation with Mr. Bennett on the subject :
4 Was not sworn ~ or to ana presented as basis o. clam ann
books and present had talk with Bennett about
o0 to mass H"s' larger T' saeint e a, tn. was not
large enough: nothing moro was ever done WIN TINS
Albany: Thaddcus G. Davis drew II; was III the rOOm
and the Commissioners asked him to draw II; whether
next step IN the matter was when certificates were
issued; think IL was In the month of February
| the first occasion the certificates were not
issued; we met again and they were issued ;
and he To Buffalo; took $1,000 ana M. Bennett took
the balance Bohe ns'esd 70 tS % DIVISION ,aid sgl
before We met IN Loskpo; the cerhees to3k ~ S,Lo re-
$4,000 certificate at Hands office; handed IT To one Of
Lords clerks do think IL was Mr.. Kelly; the $1,000
certificate | kept Bennett and myself caye the Canal
be issued Bennett and myself Ist met at Lockpor ana
had conversation about The terms OF division.
have no recollection Of any conversation with Lord
about division peSiouSyi onnett refused To have the
was allowed several thousand dollars more than his
third the certificates issued about 10 days after
saw Mr. LORD; between ihls liiie -" nm AT Albah!
when I learned OF the division from Mr.. Bennett
at the Drlavan House; had some talk win
Lord in relation to this division Lord and
Bennett had conversation about the matter,
which did not hear don't know but what rpose 70
both Of them about II after that had talN win Ar
Bennett; Lord assrntcd To the arrangement; went
division was made few day after lef a certificate in
Mr.. Lords Office met him supposed the transaction
certificates were issued To John Hand, and the assigned
name OF the assignee left blank; my recollection !.
the paper executed AZ L"ckpor The certificates mad
not been udurs.d before that; don't think Hands name
was upon them; tho assignment was attached 20 the
paper which took,
Tie witness. was not crossoxamined At this stage the
Court adjourned dinner. The Court opened
zig o'clock p w.. when ex-Cana Commissioner Franklin
A. Albers Of Buffalo called. He testified on cross
examination. follows concerning the passage Of tie
Hand act in 1871 when be and Lord members or
the Assembly:
To MI Cogswcl-I presented the petition and the
matter my attention al the request OF Bennett; he Was
% ge IIo ~ ny s nS cc,:mnncaton With Mr Lord con
ceruin2 the bill. petition or claim think drew the
hil NY self: mink did not speak Ia Mr. Lard on the sub
j-ct until the Winter or Spring OF 1874
To Mr. Humphrey annot say II Mr. Lord voted Tor
the bl II would be- dicult for me 10 mont on the name
of man " no voted for il de- know that can naue
think a cches were made Ia tho Committee OF The
TO lir Cogswell-I never knew Mr.. Lord to make a
speech.
Mr. Humphrey offered in evidence Tho Assembly
journal showing the vote tho bill for the relief Of
John Hand. Mr. Cogswe objected the ground that
il was printed book aud not admissible as evidence.
Judge Daniels deferred his decion Proof Of service Of
"a subpoena on john Kelly WAS read, and an attachment
issued for him
At the conclusion OF testimony Of Mr AlberGer,
Judge Daniels decided that the Assembly Journal was
| admissible a. evidence. The Hon Mr. Humphrey then
read rom the journal TO show thai George d. Lord voted
for the act for the relief Of John Hand. Theexannaon
Of Witnesses for the prosecution was then continued.
Lewis j. Bennett said:
Have resided here suce 1866; have known George u.
Lord Spring Of ,GS mad an Interest Ia repair
contract here and At s expiration he was the mcomins
contractor; know John Hand and John khey; IN $50
ana 1871 Hand member OF our Grm. The witness
| here identified Hands signature TO documeni'.l
Were Interested In contracts after Mr.. Hand took them
had conversation with Mr. Lord In relation 10 procur-
s the passage OF Ia" 10 enable me 10 procure an ehi
ot his office In tEis city word was left az my once
that Sir. Lord would ike To me: went To hls once
aid had not thought of it, that ii wonld be expen-
| sive and thnt 1 did not know much about such mat
| He .ad he ought to have two-thir,ls ;
tat rest would be clear gain to said there would
tlnL did about details; did not calculate TO
| give II any attention received from him paper for
IL at Buffalo the paper within 10 days after the
conversations kept the peger copied It. aud made an
| I sent the paper to Mr.. Lord inside of week
from the time L received the one from him ;
think learned OF the passage OF the act from news
papers; do recGcct that Ia Albany dong any
ihng procure the OF the act saw Mr. Lord IN
This city at about the time OF the adjournment OF The
legislature he said no had quite stormy time WIN
Gov. Hoffman about the signing OF the bn lie said the
Governor had refused 10 sign II; next he sent me such
paper would he necessary to make Application Tor a
hearing under the act; think copied the application
and forwarded ii the President OF the Board Oi Canal
Commissioners; next | received notice OF The day
OF meeting; the Board met hero to hear claim
got subsequent papers after consultation with Mr
Lord made statement from my BOOKS aud hils TOOK
Rochester vii this WAS about ten days after
| tie meeting ~ the Board met Lord al his Ollce l
showed him the account had made, and he SAID some
items too low. and 1t MAS not properly arranged
est investment; made out another account accord
ing 10 his Suggestions labor items were 'arser than IN
| the paper | took down with ne, and Items
| were added; / went to Rochester TO sub,
don't remet@ber that saw Lord that day; presented
the to the Board about tho time the award was
made Mr. Lord To Buffalo To get tho certificates
/ Attf B.pHT .lf n