New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-08
TIE BRIBERY or GEORGE d. LORD.
MORE DAMAGING EVIDENCE.

MORE DAMAGING EVIDENCE.
THE CONTRACTORS HAND AND BENNETT TESTIFY AT
BUFFA. o-ALso CANAL APPRAISER DAvis-rlIE
PRISONERS RELEASE ASKED AND DENIED-HIS
DEFENSE BEGUN.
BrrFALo. \. Y. Jan. THE Court met for
the trial Of George d. Lord. for completely In the c'nl
frauds to-day al the appointed time. Lewis j. Bennett
the contractor took the stand again, ana hs cosseXa-
nation, continued from yesterday, resumed Tor u
few moments. The counsel for the People tien Pues-
toned him. lie said:
heard nothing about bill being introduced IN Albany
prior TO ny first interview with SIR. Lord; r.,
turned sl7s5? to The sG 5000 ana nlrr' o So
OF the Sl7,s55 and 5000 before was indicted.
Walter \. Cook, journal Clerk OF the Assembly In
1871. took the stand with tho Assembly Journal. He
was asked a few questions about the method Of keeping
it. Tie whole Journal placed in evidence.
John Hand Of Amsterdam, the canal contractor, Of the
firm OF Bennett * Coz took the stand He told about the
dates Of the Erie Basin, Ohio Basin and Black Rock con-
tracts, and the work under them. Being then asked
about the act for the relief OF his firm, he said:
never signed or any paper be presented 10
the legislature not IN Albany In the Winter OF
ici apure beiope VIM Is Field ON the III OF January
1871, any ohec time the ilrst heard about the
law Mr.. spaulding spoke To about 1T; kept no
watch on the legislative proceedings It shortly
aftar signing the paper that Nj. spauldng called my
attention to the law never had any talk about the mat
ter with SIR. Lord; Mr.. Bennett was the actYe man Of
the concern learned Of meeting ~ the Canal Col-
missoners here July, 1871 to take action under this
law; was not present my Signature was aitlrned 10
The receipts dated Dec. Is, 1871 Mr.. Sparkling
after me ; when got there found Mr. Lord and nj.
wanted me 10 sign I signed them on tue face; tbon
MIR. Lord turned them round and told me to sgn them
in his bis poeSet' The paper. were not 'iea "
Ir Lord said nothing except Ia tell me to sigu
them ON Tie back; saw Lord shortly afcrwarl-within
wanted sign before signed them he spokc of the
papers had signed before ami said they were not the
night ones; signed the others upon the face, and be
wanted to sign them on the back; wouldn't do n;
he said they Of urc 10 him, aud LEFT them In tie
Office; Mr. Lord did not stay IN the Office long; went 10
Albany; got letter from Bennett asking me 10 come
! IT was dated Feb - ls7i PARE shown don't
this; II my name In there, Il In iorsry. lAh"ih'r
paper shownJ swear 10 ms Palel tno LII t, "'2
had interest IN the irIn oil Bennett q Co. since jan ~
1873.
This witness was not cross-examincd.
| Thaddeus C. Davis Of Buffalo, Canal Appraiser was
sworn lie said that he has known Mr. Lord wen for four
or I've years. and know about tine Hand relief act He
then said:
was present at the meeting of the Canal Commission
or. whcn claim presented under tins relief act the
Commissioners present Jackson stroud, aud Lark
ley; the meeting was held AT my Office; took part On
behalf OF state nj the request Of the commissioners
prior To that time had been engaged 10y Mr. Bennett To
collect from SIR. Lord moneys which Mr.. Lord had ro-
ceyed, AMI which Mr.. Bcnnct claiinodi mink TINS was
in July 1874; called upon Mr. Lord and stated
To him that sired to make coecton oi the money :,
To The amount about 10000, Belonging 10 Mr. Bennett
lac said lie had no money belonging Ia Bennett ana cOh-
had had two or three Interviews
with him; lac said he hal not collected lhe MONEY no
said that when the money WAS paid lac would pay MI.
Bennett; settled the matter with him IN septchher or
October OF 1874 u was some une neloie u,e
sionrrs met IN Buffalo; Mr.. Lord paid me $4,000 hni
some odd dollars il certified chech bearing date
some time anterior II wab collected and accounted for
To Bennett be got the fun amount but not IN payment
TO him directly; when had collected the money ho told
retain 1t for time nc came to me ana got SJ'ooo'
! / did other business Tor him.
| Henry ID. McNaugLton Special Deputy Clerk OF Mon
roe County, was called with the records Of tho Board OF
audi ,.y prIa al IA gk
Mr. Cogswell then entered upon argument before
the Court IN relation the valno of the evidence thus
far presented He claimed that shc agreement entered
INTO by Bennett not after Jan 3, 1871 If IL he
fore that date there criminal oense; further the
conversation which is claimed to be the onense Is
| not proved 10 have taken place after the meet
| ing Of the Legislature; II not. Mr. Lord was
not "A person holding Office, and could not be brbed
officially. MI Cogswe then said lie desired TO present
question under the statute OF limitations, which he be-
eved would arrest this prosecution His position was
that the act of 1860 bong In force when the alleged
onense committed, must apply to tho finding OF the
Indictment and not the statute Of 1873 lie then en-
argument of length AS to the cons'ruc
statutes, claiming that the statute OF 1873
not retrospective IL was substantially the same
argument as presented before Judge Clinton tho mo
strike the special plea Ho asked the Court to
| direct verdict OF acquittal.
At conclusion OF the argument the court adjourned
I
When the Court convened this afternoon Mr. Sprague
made an argument In favor OF the admission OF the
statute of lmit9on in this ease. holding In substance
that II applied the prosecution wanted IT, II would
become er post Jaeto law and therefore unconstu
| tiOnaL
| The Hon. Mr.. Humphrey then addressed the
| Court at length the subject, In favor
| OF the prosecution. Judge Daniels then
proceeded to deliver extemporaneously his decision
citing numerous authorities and denying the motion u
discharge the prisoner under the Statute OF Limitation
holding, substantially. that the statute not neces
sarily retrospective applied TO this that the
three years allowed under the old law not having expired
when the Statute OF Limitation OF 1873 enacted, the
ease became subject the provision VI the latter which
| repealed the former
After the rendering Of the decision, Mr.. Cosswell
opened the for the defense The main point OF the
defense that the agreement between Mr. Lord and
the contractors was previous to the date on which MI
Lord became legislator hence there was no bribery
close OF the address, Mr. Lanng stated that they
had not as yet decided their line Of defense their time
having so occupied IN tho progress Of the case ana
he asked the for time until tomorrow morning
which granted, until which time the court adjourned