National Republican., 1882-11-01
THE Jury BRIBERY CASE.
Proceedings in the Case or Payne B'
fore the Police Court.


The first of the jury bribery cases-that against
Arthur Payne, colored-came mp IN the police
court at noon Tuesday Mr.. II. IL. Wells and Mr..
ker represented the government Payne was at
tended by his counsel, Messrs. Padgctt, Newman,
Davis. and Clagett. Messrs brewster Cameron,
Robert q. 1ngersoll Juror McLan, and Others,
who had been connected with tie star.route trial,
sat within the bar. Mr. Ingersoll stated 10 the
| court that he had been subpgnaed to produce n
number of afidavits. OF the lists submitted to
him he said he had afidavits from Foote, William
Brown, and man named Laws. These he
handed 10 the clerk. Alter explaining mat the
complaint was founded upon sections b4Cl and
$500, Revised Statutes, MIR. Wells proceeded to
rad the warrants aud Browns affidavit Tor the
information of the court Payne pleaded not
guilty. Mr. Wells
THEN OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
n certified copy of the record in the star. route
case. Jur or William Knox Brown was then
| called to the wtuess stand, and on being asked TO
state what relations he had with Payne in con-
| nection with his verdict IN the tar-route case,
repeated the story substantially as has been pub
| lshCd In THE REPUBLICAN,. Upon cross eXamlna,
uon by Mr.. Davis, witness said he was informed
| through nu anonymous vote OH Saturday even
lug September %, that Fall was working up this
scheme. lie had destroyed the note, and did not
knoy the sender. Witness did not believe they
had an intention of paying $500 for his vote. lie
believed that 1t was Job to send him to the peni-
| tenary. The de! !euse endeavOred without sue
cess to obtain statement from the witness ni the
conversation between himself and Mr. Wels,
|
| tion and was sustained by the court. Witness
said that on October II last he made an aflidaYit
(what Is known us the ineSrsoil nthdayitl' put
| prevented from questioning tile witness OH the
subject, the object being to contradict him.. The
! original affidavit then produced, and the
witness was examined upon its subject matter.
WITNESS DENIED THAT FALLS NAME
| had been mentioned i'll the affidavit, and when
| the document hud been exhibited 10 him con q.
tanning Falls name, in an interlinpatiOu, he said
he thought IL had been inserted alter lie SWOTe To
| the affidavit which, he said, was III Colonel III
| gsSolrs handwriting. 1t was not true that he
| used Falls name on that occasion. SO much OF
the affidavit stated that Martin another juror
was to be influenced was untrue lie diu not re;
| member who told him that Colonel lngcrsoll
wanted TO see him, but he went up TO his oihce,
and made the affidavit, which followed one made
before Assistant District Attorney Moore The
court remarked at this point that the matter be-
fore him was not whether the juror mad been
brbcd, but whether he had been approached.
Mr. Davis replied that he understood thut lie
was now trying TO make out by the wtncss's own
| words that he was unworthy OF belief; that he
had made afiidavits cont adictory of one another.
At the request of the defense the further exam
nation of Brown was continued until tomorrow,
in order to allow them to obtain, by a subpoena
upon the Alto ney- y-General, ihe aifidavits COL
lected by Special Counsel Wells.
| MR.. A. B. WILLIAMS WAS CALLED TO THE STAND
to answer n subpoena calling upon him for the
atdavits OF Nelson aud others. lie said that he
had returned the affidavit to Nelson. HIS Ieasol
was all honest prosecution; the paper was waned
for no honest purpose. For the protection of the
witness (Nelso:i), who would be called before the
court, he lad done this. Mr. Williams was asked
whether lie was prescat participating on October
l6 in the preparation of what was subsequently
published us Colonel lngersolls interview. This
question the witness refused 10 answer and up.
pealed to the Couit. The question was tempo
rariiy waived. Wituess said lie knew q subpoena
was out for the Nelson affidavit when he gave il
| to Nels IN this morning. Mr.. Wells here renewed
his question relative to the lngersoll interview
but again the witness declined TO answer.
HIS OBJECTION WAS SUSTAINED.
by the court. The witness acknowledged that nc
had deliberately, for the purpose OF eradng the
subpoena, given the affidavit TO Nelson in court
He said he acted entirely upon his responsibility
| in this mater. Mr.. lngersoll knew nothing of his
| purpose; did not know where Foote's affidavit
| was; believed it had been returned to Foote sew
eral days ago. He declined to tell whe'e Foote
was, and in answer to an implied threat from Gov
Wells to have him punished for concealing tnt
whereabouts of fugitive from justice, he sait
| said that the charge against Fooe was ouly
misdemeanor, and he (Williamsl could not bt
forced to give such inflammation. sulpupiids wGf1
I isgnt9et- for Colonel IngersolT, nelson. and MIR
Baker, clerk in Colonel lngersoll's employment
| At this point the proceedings were adjourned unit
| noon to- day.