New-York tribune., 1879-01-18
ROBBING A COUNTY.


SAMUEL FROME ACQCTTED-EDNCND TEEL con-
vICrEn-J. J. STONE CS TRIAL
PROM SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT THE rRIBUNE.l
BELvIDERE. y. j.. Jan. 17.-During the
progress Of the conspiracy trials several attacks
have made 10y the for the defence upon the
course pursued by DstrctAt0rnry Harris IN getting
evidence against the accused They have
imputed 30 him desire TO procure convictions
rather than have justice done They have even gone
30 far 10 hint broadly that the Dis;rct-Attorney
would be punished IN some way II he did not change his
mode OF proceeding Attorney General stockton
answered these accusations with sharp TeOuke IN sum
ming up in the Warren House conspiracy case lie
said ID conclusion 1t IL not success we
but Justice" An opportunity OF proving the truth
Of gwen to the attorney atthe opening
Of the court to-day. Samuel Frome the ex--up'F'h'eL
den: Of the Poor House had been indicted for conspiracy
Dr. Mattison ana ex-DirectOr Strader IN raising
the amount OF an order for salary que
him. The evidence given yes; rday Indicated
that FrOme had been made tool III tHe
transaction and had not proited by H. There was
evidence. also. that he had protested against
the action Of MatusOn and strader. The Attorney
General therefore declared that the prosecution would
not press the charge and asked that FrOme might nave
the benefit OF a verdict his favor. The ChieJustce
made a charge TO suit the demand and the jury gave
verdict of not guilty without leaving their seats
The trial OF cxCounty Collector Edmund Tcel'
=
following account Of the forgery brought out
by the TESTIMONY Of witnesses for the state
In July 1876, John Fine. q contractor re-
pajred a small bridge. and charged t3 for the
work. He given FreeholdrFs order on
the Comfy Col ector for the amount OF his bill and 10
September following he presented the order to Iee"h'
paid it. Mr. Fine signed affidavit and re-
ccipt on The back Of the order which was thus
converted INTO voucher TINS vou' her, when pre-
seuted 10 the Board OF Freeholders, was made
10 appear as one FOR s33, and Teel =
allowed that sum. The paper. which was
produced court. bore stakable evidence OF for
gerry. An additional figure 49, written in a different
hand ard with different ink, had been placed
before the other figures in the money column on
the face Of the order, while the receipt
in TecPs handwriting the back made
FOR S33 The written amount three dollars was LETT
untouched the face. J. J. Stone, the freehoidrr
who gave the order ana Mr.. Fine, tue contractor e-
fed tnat the amount mad been changed without their
KNOWLEDGE Mr.. Fine sworc that he received only
81 from the County Collector MT. Ludwig. a
bank expert identified the writing on the back Of the
order as that Of Tcel There striking similarity
also between the figures the back and the addi
tionaI figure "3" on the face OF the order
other orders winch had passed through Tees hands,
when no County Collector, were produced
and they had been changed also. One OF
these orders had been changed from S33 TO
S333 These all bore date OF more tlan two years
however and they could only be used evidence,
the time 'or indictinc Teel FOR them had passed.
Tee then testified IN his own behalf substantially as
follows: This paper docking AT the order passed
through my hands while comfy collector The face
Of The order the condition when 1t came
into my hands at st l never made any al
teratiOns the face Of this order. The writing the
back mine. pad Mr. Fine the S33 which the order
calls for II was my nvsrable custom 10 III up tho
olanEs on the back OF order, have them signed
and 10, and then 10 sign my own
name and pay the money Ny attention
usually directed t. the figures the face Of
order and not 10 the written specification. never
discovered the discrepancy between figures and the
writing until my attention called TO by Mr. BeersI
cannot account for this difference but know that
did after the face OF the Orier can ONLY say nat
I was guilty Of an oversight IN paying the >J3
a brother OF the accused man was then called n The
witness stand and gave the opinion that thc figure
the face Of The order not written by the excel
lcctOr, Judging from the handwriting -iinll'r
testmOu, Was gwen by David VI sell. 1rels scpsOn.
LudxIg the bank expert. recalled by the defence.
and admitted that he could not swear that the ngre
d" , " the face Of the order was written by Tel.
speech by VI. ShipmIn Ieels counsel but Attorney
General stockton shattered IT by arguing that IL IN
vOyed question OF perjury either on Inc
part Of stone and Fine. the part Of Teel. who
convicted OF cOnspiracg. The jury. after
lOug delay, brought IN a verdict OF " guilty.
the witnesses, was Hrraghed Tor. a conspiracy
during The time he freehoider. He was
charged with conspiracy with jessie Carnart another
freebodrr. the out ~ S45. by NJ
a false order. smith Clark, quarryman, was
induced TO sign "A bank receipt the back
of al order which then fl led 40 aud drawn hy
stone The testimony in the had proceeded only
little way when Judge Beasly adjourned the Court III
II. NOnday