, 1879-02-03

bard had made to bis reports, which were rnaan
,,nder thc niucteentI, section Of ihc Bankruptcy
49,; 49,; h.na,,. and fitness took up ,.,, vo'amG
turned to tho section. AMI tic fudge
saittit ddntscer right or was wrong, or tot,c-
tnnE or nthrr. ut that Il wasn't right to fndlct
Mtbhatd for perjury for tin, reason. beca,sst The
law went Into force for hts construction, uIHl hn
t,ad Gtscn the construction untIcr which lie
Sli,bhtarfll acted and made hia report. Witness
what cons.ruction Iibbari iad artcd un,icr.
lle didn't tell him what facts the f.rnnl Jury
had found. Thr conversation lasted nnIy Two
Of tl'rco minutes. After tho interview
Jury and told them no had heard direct from
Judge btod1ctt that the construction Of tho Law
under which fllbl,arl Ind actc,l IN making the
reports WHICH tlcv alleged to he false wns
nn cxpres! application, mud, II that wns the
case, and fiIbhartl ind acted upon the construr
t!on, there certainly wasn't ground tor M iniLct
tnet,t Ter perjury; thai Judge B!odgett had re-
gucsted him to ask the Jury II tl!cy had any
9oubt on the subiect. or eny question of law,
to present thctnsclves In open court mil he
would Instruct them from tho bench. There
an sta;ed 1Gnf a hs c Want to ey
Of Judge Blodsctt's construction, but sliii
desired 70 present the Indictment. n, witness
indictment aud presenting ttt'' Witness an
swcred tisat Judge l'iodEett had told him, fn
that easc, II would be hia official duty to with.
told him. judge nodcctt told htm that Judre
Drummond cont,trrctl with him, hut did not
say on what points or how .nl,cl Of Il. Witness
had mentioned the concurrence to the jury. He
understood the Judges construction to t1c tim.
fitbbsrl wns Obliged TO rcnort the fees received
tn cases presented during the year for which the
report was made, nnd 80 to.d the Jury In effect.
At THE AFTERNOON SESSION
the examination Of Judge Bangs wascontinued,
md he testified that tic Indictment for taking
illegal fees concerned only three cnscs (tlIere
were twenty IN ally, amounting to $l5.50 The
reason OF this was that II MAS necessary to set
them out with sosne epartic1tlaritv,ntM u,ake each
| time" prevented mora hen0 nut In. Those
tint wpro tlle most susceptible of proof and
leading cases OF trrgEninrity In charging feos
were selected, "a hn understood.
dIctment in evidence. # contains two rni,nts,
ona setting forth tat 1ilbbard's fees TO which
he had aworn) In 1s71 wcrc S9,es7.s7, WHEN In
truth they wsre ss3, ,@9; nnd u.e other. that tho
| were $4,000.
On cross.cxamtnation. witness statcd that ho
thought Cof. Cooper, whn was n witncss, gave
s s2s R e1s s Jury a. to e". Miast 1 fee,
tell witncts that the tlnding OF at, Indictment
| against Hibhsrd for perjury would be M out
rage. but blu lansuaee was rather strong. lie
did not know v An suGI Cd calling Col. Cooper,
| believing 1t was d Aurprfse to him.
On being recalled Inter In lhe tlav, Judge
Bangs said b. handed str: Thomson lItpbart's
rcports for 1911! '10 and ~, "a the basis for tho
indictment. the assignment Of perjury being
! he had received ~ bankruptcy cnses that hal
come before HIN IN the scars for which the re-
ports Wcro made. The indictment was never
seen BY tho Jury or Judge Blodgutt, OF read by
witness. His understanding was that Ilibbard
| had left out a large amount Of fees received in
years prior to those for which t1e reports wero
made, md TINT It was on this ground that tie
Lal. Cooper referred witness to The Bar Com
| fntttccs report, aslsng II tho luty's attention
| was called 10 tie following "Summary OF the
| fees, shown by lfit6art1fs fce-books. received
By him for The three years ending June 81. 161I,
juno 90, 1875. aud June 30 1871, In all tascs rc-
| fcrred to him Ia those yours, md not including
fees for proofs Of claims or for taking deposit
! tlohsh:
rartey from July j, 1874, 70 june 10.
Amount REPORTED by Hsui.ier.. -. ..." q. ss$
undcsstated. ................. ....... ....$ 900
| Fees received for 1170,... >. ....$14, 9Ol
| Amount reported BY Neg,stcr.... 0, 0S7
Understatcd. ................. -. -. ....S 4, GOD
Fees received foe1H77 ....... .........$l1 A45
Amount reported BY ReEister.... ......... Q, 2@5
Total amount undc,siatcd 49,. ;: 10 s.',
! Witness sall vcry likely that was sworn to ~
correct before tflu 1us', but 10 had 40 reeo'lsc-
only question that can,o 10 hts mind was
whether f1ibbarl waa Obliged to rrport fees In
cases commenced before the year III whtclt tho
report Was made, AMI It accmed to be the idea
that he had no b1sinras 10 cunstrt,e the law as
he dit, a,ltl TINT report a,ade uldcr that coil
strnction, leaving cut fees tu other cases, vas
+ falso report. Shorthand notes wcro taken OF
| the evidence, but witness had been unable to
I find them, and would make another search.
Theyi possibly: might haye been taken by mis-
take io the oitlco OF Lawrence u Campbell, who
| were counsel ID the Custom-lfouse cascs.
THE TESTIMONY or IuDoE pAuMMoND
WAS particularly Interesting, utl Of very great
Importance, for tho reason TINT IT. settled thu
| vaxcd question rs to lust what he bad said to
JudCs BiodEctt, and explained Just What tl,,
alleged concurrence Of views WAS. IHdVo blsxl-
hc was in his brother Judges room, that
| tho Grand Jury intended to tndfrt ftfbbard for
perjury. IIe asked Judge Bo4lsttt on Whit
ground tht4 Indictment was to be based, und
any fault or error committed, II WAS on his part,
aInce 10 had Rtvcn fiihuard the construction Of
tic Law on which. he took It for granted. tlut
official had madr bis reports, This Grand
Intended TO indlet flibbard because they believed
he had madp false return OF fees received dur.
Ing certain year. ll|a Instructions to llihbaTl
hnd been that It WAS unnecessary to return any,
that had come before him during TINT year. In
other worls, 1t was not necessary TO return fec4
Ia cases coGme,,ccd and coming before him the
prtyiuus year. Judge hlodgett read lhc law,
had Induced him to make The construction. but
Judge Druinn,oi.l was quite sure that he did
not stats what Ills own construction of The Inv
wus, although he did stato tn Judge D!oagett
That there NaA 4 uo11 deal OF fOrtc iii what tl1
said. Tl,ere was no question, as THO eas''
was presented to him, tkat fl.bburtl had
:. fuiled fu carry out Judge Dlodgett's eorlstruc-
stated u Judge Moipctt that l,s thought 1t
would bo : great wr,nE to lltbhard to bs In
dfttei for making his returns in eo,formtv
with judge Blolgctt's construction. That state
ment was bascu Altogether III lhc hypothesis
tl,at t, returns wcru trle,-tt.at Is, in accord
anre with that coHstrtlrtiafl. In short. Judnn
Drummon.l did not tell Judge iiltaigeat that ha