The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1877-11-07

1t In o'clock promptly Judge Townsend
took his scat upon the bench. and, after q lew
moments OF unavoidable delay, the proceed-
lngs of the day were begun with the continue.
ton of the testimony Of Jusephus Woodruff,
the witness who had been partially examined
OH Thursday. -sEtIf
WOODRUFF on THE STAND.
As soon as " Woodruff had taken his seat in
the witness box Gen. Unncr said: "When we
closed Yesterday we were examining the wilt
ness on the casli-book, and had proved the
posting from the cuSh-bOok into the ledger OF
the eight hundred dollars credited to W0od-
run and Jones each as their part OF the ccrtih-
Judge Melton: I have understood that the
prosecution have proved 1t as to Woodruff,
and your Honor ruled 1t in. because 1t was a
declaration OF Woodruf In reference 70 inc
conspiracy. The same doctrine OF the Court
would not apply to an entry as to Jones.
Gen. CunnOr: / will put Jones on the stand.
Q. MI. Woodruff, In your cash-book. on the
S'rl Of Dee WSas does ! sf that an m eassS; = FUND.-
Judge Melton i~nterrupting): May 1t please
Your Honor, how can this man know the
meaning OF Ill entry mado by some one
else?
Gen. Conner: In an entry made BY the mer.
chant he tells the bookkeepcr what To DO, and
It tx presumed thut every hend OF a firm
Keeper is only the agent, not the principal. !
put 1t In IL simple shape. suppose, for In.
stance, the bookkeeper makes un entry and
shows It to the principal, could ne, on an eS-
animation like the present, suy "yes. the en-.
try is there, but / did not authorize It TO ne
done" would such AN excuse as that hold
, water?
Gen. Conner: OF course not. There Is the
record Of the transaction. l asked the witness
what 1t means, and he, as the principal, has
given an explanation.
distinctly lined out than that the entry made
In q merchants books by his clerk 10 presum-
ably his own, and can be introduced III evil
drnce against the party himself. The contents
OF a merchants book under the statute may
be introduced against the party charged In u
suit. by the merchant against the party In the
same suit. or In any action where me mGr,
entries against his Interest. But the law OF
evidence draws a very broad line between the
admissibility Of the merchants book against
himself and against the str,nger, so That the
books OF a merchant are very often evidence
against the merchant when they would not
be tolerated against the strunger. Why the
simple answe may be made at Once that that
sort OF evidence Gun be manufactured TO any
extent. If Woodruff and Jones books are to
be put in evidence against everybody, you
put everybody In this community ut the mer-
cy Of Woodruff and Jones clerk, and YOU
put In here rs truth whatever Woodruffs
clerk pleases to put down. II woodruff were
the defendant We hold that the books would
be evidence against Woodruff. and that they
c,pnot be evidence against Cardozo. There
is no evidence Of verifying 1t. 1t seems 10 me
that the proposition Is utterly wild. The at
torney-geneial is carrying this mutter too Tar.
I ain sure that your Honor annot allow 1t to
60 so far.
Gen. Conner The learned counsel, In lay:
Ing down the principle Of law which should
exclude this evidence, has given the reason
why It should be admitted. Ills point is. that
theentry would be ns good against Woodruff,
and inadmissuble only nsagainst the stranger.
II is lust here that his whole argument breaks
down for 1t is not introduced as against a
lNA 80, ~,~f ~f fl.n rfN sf fhA
transaction, n conspiracy which has been
proved already. 1t Is, therefore, not evidence
aguins1 tho stranger. but against q Cocoon,
spiratUr, Counsel has said that, In q quarrel
between conspirntors, the books would be ad-
mittee, Can anything be more clear than
that those books are the record OF the ccpurt
ners In this conspiracy, and as the records. OF
Of sIthh the enSsssion laid down ~ cornsel. "'
Judge Melton: In no sense IL CnrdoZn. q Co
partner. The charge Is not ugainSt him on
the books, and furthermore ask the atten,
ton OF the Court to the further point that ]
apprchcnd the Court has not carefully consld.
cred, and that u IL the net that, taking these
| 10 be declarations OF Woodruff or Jones, they
spiracy, but are the declarations of parties
made after the conspiracy Is contaminated,
and therefore entirely out Of the rule. Judge
Melton here read a paragraph from wharton
! such evidcncc is to be admitted, continued
Judge Melton, 1t is directly In the teeth OF the
authorities I have quoted, and my friend has
cited noneIon his side OF the question o..
by the Court; What book is this, Mr.. Conner!
Gen. Conner. Unterrosating the witness; > Il
this the original book Of the Republican
Printing Company ?-.tnswer. Yes, sir. -
Gen. Conner: In whnse handwriting arc
these entries madc7-A. In Mr.. Jaclsson's
handwriting ...'
edge.
Gen. Conner: I would call attention to the
fact that the payment Of the check did not
take place until February /. 1t * only.
record connected with the conspiracy, and ]
don't hesitate to say thai its main value IL The
corroboration 1t gives the testimony Of tho
witness.
BY tie Court: The Court regards this as IN
admission Of u co-conspirator." b..
THE SUNDAY SCHOOL FUND.
Gen. Conner: What Is the entry there. The
entry under date Of December 2I:-A. IS
q Now, what do those words mean, the "s
$. Fund 2" Is 1t your designation, or the dcs
ignatIpn q the heels clerk T "A l. tn think nix It av was pro
the words were used. They had been usec
from the commencement Of our business.
@. Well, what did rs. =. FUND.- mean:-A
It, % 9sanst as i Somaa eRe S sro%d Tuna moo
@. Who knew It as Sunday School fund ?? :.
A, All the parties connected with the estab
lishment.
O.. When any amount Of money was ordered
to be charged To the Sunday School fund
what did that mean "A. That II was FOL
amounts allowed for payment Of other, thur
the regular buslness-for qualifications, &c.
Q: In plain Language; what T did 1t I mem II ~, ;oA
ments, and otherwise
gttfmately usedF-A. 1 regarded it Ms lcgiti
q. How dc you regard 1t now::-A. ] really
couldn't ray. I wouldn't know how to tern
it. 1t Was money. paid to the company. and
considered that after the company. received 1t
1t was the conipany's funds to dispose OF Il,
o. Nus it paid for legal or Illegal services
A.. I would not like to say TINT II was paid fol
Illegal services. 1t was paid IN the way o
presents.
O. The parties to whom 1t was paid had nc
right TO the payment. did they? They conld
not have brought suit for it, could thcy:-A,
No, sir. ..'. .
A HEAVY BRIBE FOR
@. What are percentages for prompt pay
Judge Melton objected md made q motion
to strike out the whole OF the evidence just
elected us Incompetent and Irrelevant. Gen
Conner, In reply, argued ut length the colnpc-
tency OF the testimony, and Mt the suggestion
/ OF the Court he asked the witness what ct.
L. F.''On the books referred to. The witness
replied, 7 Mr.. Caldozo."
q. In what connection "A. II indicates
that 50 much was paid him out Of that "sun-
Judge Melton Now what has that todo with
Gen. Conner: Is the certificate &c. l.. F.
connected with that entry "A. That cannot
@. Are those initials &C. L. F." used for any
one besides Cardozo "A. No., sir.
z. That $3.50 was paid to Cardozo "a. Yes,
sir; according to this entry.
q. Can you recnll the particular items OF
that entry "A. No, sir.
Judge Melton l move that all that evidence
be stricken out and taken from the jury.
Upon this point an argument of some length
said The motion to strike Out the evidence
Is refused. 1t appears TO the Court that the
entry was nude during the prOgruss of the
conspiracy, and It appears Furthermore thai
these letters, &c. H.. r. are pnrt OF the entry
refer, the Court considers TINT II Is Il matter
which can properly be left TO the Inference OF
the jury.
Gen. Conner: Whenever any amount was
paid to CardOz0, were the letters &c. l.. r." AL.
the letters of. L. CA. In the book entries
1t was always &C. L. F." to the best Of my re-
collection.
Observation-Disclosures.
Gen. Conner: Some discussion took place
syestcriay In reference to the pay certificate,
'und ] stated that / would produce 1t This morn.
ing. Hands the certificate to wltnesS.) Look
mt that and Zee whether It Isl joint certificate,
A.. Yes, Sir.
q. Who is It prepared by:-A. BY myself.
q. What Is the date OF TIA. March IL, 1874.
1t was made in accordance with the request OF
Glcaves. the President OF the senate.
z. Read it,. "Scnate nnd House Of Rep
urcr will pay to l.. T.. C., &c, S8U."
/ q. 10 You remember the. circumstances OF
drawing lt?-A. / have some recollection of It,
) Ny recollection is that was drawn nj the r..