, 1877-10-06

for ilorn: hut lc did nat tun"tdc that th' -.
things of sllcrrclvcs wrrc anything like 'n'll-
..a, sisnt ,a, T. ."nnes,, or tente! 10 e?',, q"
ntlrr partirs to tlcfraui the cnnn,y. What t
was proposed to he prtvcI must lc proved hy
legal cridtntc. The hlta that the delivery u
e"ols rp,iln hc proven hv the fra,k.--a third
pcrkon-tn nrtlcr to connect him with them,
Was 50 nlsurf that no lawyer ought 10 spcnd
time IN arguing th:t It rouM not be tDnr. The
deciarntftns Of one of the parties on trial were
cvldcncc aratnkt hin alone, and unly on that
llai been produced 10 sanction the proposition
that Il made no difference whether feriolat wna
OH trial. Mr.. Smith maintained that u made A
material difference, and hc read irnm the a,poks
against party not On trial was not
material against eu-consplratnT WIN WAS.
Only the acts and declarations done and made
IN carrying out the common design or Illegal
declaration OF one rs to who w<r" lIis partners.
THE cortRr uxbER5roNn
the law to be- Tint what Fcriolat os Carpenter
may have saiti to Tom: Dirk. OF Harry would
spIracy-if one be cstahlished-nnless s,lch
statements were part nf the t,iap Of operations
and carrying Into efEeEt Of the common
schemc. thai the erhcmc IS not partnership
that whatever they did IN ctIcetng tint crime
was evidence agalnst ALL but not evlrnte az a1t.st
any but themselves. In this rasc there was
some discretion In the Court. lie vas not tied
"You shall travel Just so.'' There must lie
some dhcretion a. to what evidence should be
admitted. at,ti It's time nf admission; and the
order In which Il should te given: The general
.llonid aot i,e admitted b which, The ut or
declaration Of one of the alleged conspirators
who was nIton trial should be allowed 70 preju~
dice any, Of the defendants who were on trial.
a:t of conspiracy. il va. .he duty of
nearly a, tic circumstances permitted. lie sax
no objection To tllr counsel for the people
some ot the defendants named III the snd1ct-
ment-that there WAS an attempt In the manner
specified to deiraud the comfy bY false pre-
lenses os It's property and money, aul to show
10 ony legitimate way that my Of the defendants
confined t" any special thing. They might show
symptoms and indications by ncts 0T by any
transactions which throw any light. nron IT.
lsnt he did not think. at this stage Of the casc,
without reference 10 what might be q proper
question hrteattcr. that the people Ind
right to Introduce hooks kept by
Forsythe Il Co., which they had mot prUved ia
be cosrcct-.to Introduce entries without show
- " IT WAS NOT COMPETENT
TO Introduce the evidence in tho manner which
apparent1. The prosecution proposed to put IL
III. lie supposed the dtscuSsOn h1d been pro-
tractea and the ground gone over, not 10 much
with reference v, any particular question, but
in order to examine tue law bcartng upon tic
case, 80 tint, when questions were reached fur
ther on, u would nut be necessary to argue
them again.
JEROME q. Beartlslcy WAS then sworn. The
entries IN the johnson account were madc by
John a. McClevev from the original entries Il,
the city urdcr booka. The 7. aisd L." entry
OFT the margin u In ny handwriting. The entry
OF the amount Of the ACCOUNT in the profit and
loss account was made BY ME by tho direction
Of rcfiuiak- johnson had no account with
Forssihe j. Co. previous to Feb, q, 1874, MOI
subsequent to this general account. :
Cross-cxaminetl-Two or three private fami
lies, perhaps. dealt With us.
Mr. 5torra called upon the defense for tho
original tity order hooks. ...
Mr. Smith said the counsel had no more
books. They had given all F0rsyihe had turned
over to them as his attorneys, but he Was nc
longer their client.
Sir. Forsytllc was nut On the stand, and said
he didn't know whether he had the books LII III.
possession. but PRESUMED le could find them
liz did not know Tint ho had ever looked ioI
them.
With the understanding that he would brinp
them In in the morning, the prosecution no,
having anything efae to otler just tlen, tho
CuIitt laliOurnel.