The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-01-08
TRIAL OF G. D. LORD.
CASE YoR THE PRosEcUTIoN-THE DEFENCE
OPENED.

Yesterdays PROCEEDINGS CLOSE OF THE
CASE YoR THE PRosEcUTIoN-THE DEFENCE
OPENED.
BUFFALO, Jan T. 1870
The Court met at tho appointed time, and the cross
examination OF Lewis J. Bennett resumed.
Mr. Walter A. Cook was also examined by Attorney
General Fairchd.
John Hand OF Amsterdam, was the next witness
who testified.
This witness not examined.
Thaddeus c. DAVIS, Of Buffalo, canal appraiser, was
also examined.
After the testimony OF Henry D. hcNaughton, Mr.
Humphrey stated that hcN expected some other wit
nesscs from Rochester and Albany to prove certain
matters after which the prosecution would rest They
would probably be here this afternoon.
Judge Daniels said the taking OF evidence would be
Suspended until afternoon.
Mr. Cogswe then said he desired to present certain
points the Court The defence desired 70 refer TO
every day OF the Legislative OF 1871 prior
February 8, in order to make appear that Mr. Lord
was present and voted There evidence upon
the IL stands which would justify the Jury
IN rendering verdict OF guilty. The statute Of 1869
provided that there shall be conviction for bribery
upon the testimony Of the other party to the offence
except il was corroborated by other parties
At this point, while proceeding with his argument,
Mr. Humphrey rose and stated that had omitted TO
call one witness, and would like 10 do now
Mr.. Cogsweu thought Il hardly fair bot Judge
Daniels said u undoubtedly oversight, and he
would therefore allow the evidence 70 DO taken.
Mr.. Andrew Spauding, OF Buffalo, was called, and
testified -
Counsel then quoted from the Transcribed steno-
graphic report Of Mr. Benefits crossexamination OF
Yesterday afternoon He submitted 10 the Court that
there evidence that this conversation which Is
claimed 70 be the offence, took place until amer the
meeting OF the Legislature. II MOI thon he was not
person holding Office and not liable for Official bribery
No person be said TO bold ONCE until he has
in he same ' Assembly district holding otce as
member At the same time The member
in the Second district Of Monroe, up to January 1871
not George d. Lord Mr.. Benefits statements
to the time OF the agreement loose that no
definite time could be fixed, and he confident tho
Court would not give the TO the jury say per-
adventure the agreement took place after January l.
1871. Mr. Coeswell then SAID he desired 70 present
question under the statute Of limitations, which no
believed would arrest this prosecution His position
that the act OF 1850 being In force when the alleged Of
fence committed must apply In the finding OF the
Indictment and not the statute OF 1S73 He then
tered into an argument OF some length TO the
strucon Of these statutes, claiming that the Of
1873 was not retrospective
The arguments used were substantially the same as
those before Judge Clinton on the motion 10
strike out the special plea Upon the grounds stated
he asked the Court 70 direct verdict OF acquitta
Al the conclusion OF Mr. Cogswell's argument the
Court adjourned until two O'Clock r. NJ.
The Court convened this afternoon Mr. Sprague
followed Mr. Cogswell in argument in favor Of the
admission OF the statute OF limitation in this case hold
ing IN substance, that II applied az the prosecution
wanted IL y would become an eTPoa taefo law, and,
therefore, unconstitutional Hon. Mr.. Humphrey then
addressed the court al length on the subject In favor OF
the prosecution
Judge Daniels then proceeded 70 deliver extcmpora-
nesusly lengthy decision, citing authori
and denying the mot0a to discharge the prisoner
under the Statute OF Limitation, holding substantially
that the statute not necessarily retrospective AZ
applied 70 this case that the three years allowance
the old law not having expired when tho Statute
Of Limitation Of 1873 enacted, the case became
s%cct TO the provision OF the latter which repealed
the lOrmer
Amer the rendering - the decision, Mr.. coSsweIl
opened the case for the Defence main points pre
sented being substantially follows Lord was elected
January 3 1871 and vas not amenable under this
act, as The defence would prove that the agree
ment was previous to thar date The prosecu-
ton had produced paper claiming 70 DO an
---~e'asht between Hand and Killer 10 establish an