The Portland daily press., 1878-12-19
The Conspiracy Case
NINTH DAY OF THE TRIAL.
The Testimony All In.

At the opening of the Court yesterday morn.
ing, Geo. w. SWEET was recalled, and testified:
went to Boston Eand saw John f. Slattery,
and asked him to come here and testify. He
promised to come, but is not here. Last even
ing my wife went to Boston to see if she could
induce Mr.. Slattery to come and testify at this
trial.
TESTIMONY OF W. II. BAXTER.
VIM. III. Baxter was examined by Mr.. Brad
bury He said / reside in Deering, and am
broker In January, 1876 went to Windham
with Mr.. Harmon and Mr.. Winship. We met
Holland at his mill. He told US he wanted
more means and wanted loan Of money. He
said that he expended $4,000 on his mill. We
examined the wool in the storehouse. He said
he wanted to effect loan for the purpose OF
investing money in wool. l refused to give the
loan on the ground that it was personal prop,
erty I said that if 1 could be secured on real
estate would loan the money Ga February
4th, 1876, loaned $1,000 to SWEET, and was
secured by an assignment of a mortgage. This
was done in the office of DrummoDd & Win
ship.
CONSTRAINED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
lent the money on 80 per cent. The mort
payments, one of 500, and the other of $500,
at about year later.
TESTIMONY OF TRUEMAN HARMON
Trueman Harmon was then examined by
Mr. Bradbury Reside in Deering, and am
kind of broker. Was summoned here by the
government and was retained until last Friday,
but was not examined. Was also summoned
before the Grand Jury. Mr.. Harmon here
stated the same story related by Mr. Baxter,
about the trip to Windhsm, and conversation
with Holland Did not see Baxter nay SWEET
the money FEBRUARY 4th. Holland was at
O. Wy ,I,Sa ogGo
refused to give the loan. The loan was nego.
tiated because Holland wanted the money. l
boush s got: Of 3o1 $1,000 from Holland the last
part OF Apr, 1916. It It, was dated April 18th,
for three months without interest. A check of
Sl10O, by j. Sollinger, and endorsed by Hol-
land, came into my possession between the LIST
and 9TH of July, 1876. / paid the.moneyffor
that check to John 0. Winship l purchased
for the check $lO75, in Winship's Office, Hol-
land being present. First met VIM. H.
Leavitt in Drummond & Winship's Office, in
July, 1876. He was introduced to me BY Mr..
Winship Next saw Leavti at the same place
in about ten days. At this second interview
took check of $2500 from Mr.. Leavitt, and in
accordance with agreement went and got 1t
cashed When gave it to Lea7tt he handed
it to Winship, who was sitting at table.
Winship counted the money and returned 1t.
At the first interview in the private Office of
Drummond & Winship, Leavitt told me he
had a friend who was in scraps and did not
want his name used, and that he wanted me to
collect some drafts for him. said l would
collect all the checks he wanted me to for 500.
/ then told him that if l was called upon to
testify in court, would tell the whole truth.
Mr.. Winship knew nothing about this transac-
ton, it was private between Leavitt and me.
At the second interview Leavftt asked me II
remembered my agreement, and l again re-
peated to him what said at first about testify
ing the whole truth. l then got the one check
of $2500 cashed. I never had any converse ton
with Mr.. Winship about this transaction. 1t
was an exclusive and private transaction bs-
tween Mr.. Leavitt and me. l again had an
other interview with him and got another note
cashed.
EXAMINED BY MR.. CLIFFORD.
Mr.. SWEET had nothing to do-with this trans
action.
CRoss-EXANINED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
The first dealings had with Holland was
when purchased the $1,000 note. Winship
gavesue mortgage which he had on a house
in Windham to secure the note. but did not
have it recorded. told Mr.. Winship that
would not buy the note unless he endorsed it,
but Holland wanted the money, and finally
Mr. WiDship said be had no doubt but that the
note would be paid, and said he would give me
guaranty on house which he had in Wind
ham. Mr.. Baxter was partner with me in that
transaction, and he said that there was no ne
cessity Of getting this mortgage recorded be-
the mortgage before the note was paid. Mr..
Winship did not tel me on what business
Leavitt wanted to see me. | used to go into
the office of Drummond & Winship very Often
At the first interview with Leavitt in the pri-
vate Office of Drummond & Winship he told
me that he had friend who was rather mix
ed up in an unsettled estate. / made the re.
mark about testifying in court because I
wanted him to understand that everything he
did with me must be square. l heard that
Leavitt and SWEET lad mortgage on Hol-
lands property. had heard before that time
that Holland went into bankruptcy:
The District Attorney here subjected the
witness to searching examination in relation
to his different conferences with Lcavitt, but
his statements did not differ. never loaned
VIM. 81. Leavitt any money. Mr. Winship
never agreed to pay me anything, Won't
Leavitt money on the notes, or that was the
legal owner of them. endorsed for Leavitt
note of $1,000 On the $4,000 note without know
ing what it was.
TESTIMONY OF JOSIAH H. DRUMMoND.
Hon. Josiah FL Drummond was then exam
ined by Mr.. Bradbury. Am lawyer in Port
ship in January 1876 Previous to that time
he had desk in my office. Know Holland,
SWEET and Leavitt. In the early part of 1876
Mr.. Winship asked me about the effect of
pledge, and the necessity of possession. Leav-
uary 1876, saw Holland in the office with
Mr.. Winship. Our firm was employed as
counsel for Holland in his proceedings in bank
ruptcy. My advice was frequently asked in
regard to it by Mr. Winship. ! re.wrote the
answer to the bill In equity which was brought
against SWEET and Leavitt by Mr.. Verrill, as
sgnee for the creditors of Holland. Did not
know anything in relation to the facts in the
Holland case except as Mr.. Winship related
them to me.
Mr.. Bradbury here stated that as far as Mr..
Winship was concerned the testimony was
completed.
TESTIMONY OF ALBERT H. SAWYER.
Albert III. Sawyer was then examined by
Mr.. Clifford. 1t was summond here by the
Government. | live in Portland and have
known Geo. W. SWEET. Have seen SWEET in
The testimony for the defence here closed
with the permission to Mr.. Clifford by Judge
Fox to examine j. f. and S. Slattery when
they arrived from Boston.
REBUTTING TESTIMONY FOR THE GOVERN
MENT.
Oliver Pope of Windham testified that Mr..
Winship>s reputation for truth and veracity
mittsd that at one time he gave q mortgage
for $4,000 guaranteeing that the property was
free from encumbrance when in fact it was
not.
Mr.. Millett of Gorham said Mr.. Winship's
reputation for truth and veracity was bad. He
admitted that he had been sued by Winship
and indicted for assault and battery.
s. B. Cloudman of Gorham said Mr..
Winship's reputation for truth was bad. Mr..
Winship had brought suit against him.
Daniel M. Wescott of Portland didn't
know anything bad about Winship.
Edward T. Smith of Windham said Win
ships reputation for truth was bad. He had
trouble with Winship and was not on speaking
terms with him.
Lesnder A. Dow of Gorham said Winship's
reputation for truth was bad. Winshp owed
him money when he went into bankruptcy.
t. A. HOLLAND RECALLED.
T. A. Holland was then recalled. He said
met SWEET and Slattery one night about the
time the second bill of sale was made. SWEET
was drunk and swore at me, telling me that
1 had cheated him. Holland then con-
tradicted some of the statements made by Mr..
Winship.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MIR. CLIFFORD.
1 don't consider that I bought the wool
which was under the bill of sale. 1t was a
sham. The bills of sale covered all the stock.
TESTIMONY OF F. NJ. RAY.
L. M. Ray said know Thomas A. Holland.
Wac attorney for the Madison Fall Manu-
featuring Company in 1876. Drew notice