The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-04-19
Star Route Trial.

WASHINGTON, Apru lo.-lH tne seuI
route trial this morning Bliss called John
r. Walsh, and asked if he had ever had any
money transactions with Brady.
Wilson objected, and the court called for
a statement.
In response Bliss called attention to
Brady's denials upon this point, and Oh
fered to contradict him.
Bliss briefly related the alleged facts set
out in the published affidavit OF Peck, that
in the summer of 1880, after the passage
of the star-route deficiency appropriation
bill, Price had been approached
by A. H. Brown, and requested to sub
scribe So coo to fund raised by the star
route contractors to defray expenses attend
ant upon the passage OF that bill; that
Price had large quantity OF unemployed
stock and had subscribed money upon the
promise that he should be given part OF the
service in return, and that money and all
drafts so subscribed by Price had been
placed upon Brady's desk. He would prove
that Brady had passed these drafts gwen to
him BY Price, who would be here to-day.
He also offered to prove that Brady had
requested witness co deposit a certain
sum of money to his credit, and that Walsh
accordingly placed $4,000 with Hatch
II. Foote, of New York, to Brady's credit.
Wilson argued that the subject was
In that connection was not proper in the
rebuttal He called attention 10 the pend
ing civil suit of Walsh vs., Brady, and assert
ted That that issue could not be tried in
this court because it in no wise affected
the case.
MerrlcK contended that, as Brady has
denied the whole conversation sworn to by
Walsh, the prosecution htd the right to
corroborate its witness by proof OF what
k.l collateral
portion OF it.
The court did not perceive how proof
would establish the truth of Walsh's state
ment of that conversation.
Merrick col tended that proof would be
sufficient to get the issue. He quoted
Walsh's testimony. wherein he says Brady
referred him to Price and TO Peterson's
draft, in proof Of his assertion that 1t was
the custom OF the second assistant post
master-general to exact from contractors
portion of the allowance for increase and
expedition. In denying the whole CONVEX
sation Brady had denied that statement,
and surely Il was but proper that they be
allowed to correct them.
The court said that the object Of re-
butting evidence was TO meet the case OF
defense. The offer would tend to contra
dict Brady upon the collateral matter out.
SIDE Of the case. II Brady bad testified
untruly be could not be contradicted. So,
as to the Price and Peterson drafts. They
were not connected with the matters set
out in the indictment. They were
collateral, and the prosecution had no
right TO rebut In that connection. Evil
dence In chief upon that point had been
rejected, and the court saw no reason to re-
consider that decision, IL was still more inn
proper upon rebuttal. The offer was there
fore overTuled.
Merrick-" Well, your honor, that closes
the governments rebuttal."
Counsel for defense announced that they
were all through.
@Now we come 10 the important part
the talk, :" said the court smiliDgly.
A Question arose as to the procedure in
presenting prayers.
Merrick advocated an adherence to the
plan followed in the former trial.
Henkle thought the court should limit
the argument by defining the Law upon dis
puted points.
Dsvidee believed the arguments would
co. sumo the remainder Of the year unless
some such plan should be adopted.
In order 10 allow time for the preparation
Of arguments on legal points, Bliss suggest
ed = recess until Friday.
The court dwelt upon the subject ct some
length. carefully reviewing The methods OF
practice in different courts, and con-
Guiding that Il would be better 70 have
arguments on fscfs IN the case
pefore disposing Of legal points. the course
ursued in the last tr1al. Arguments 20
the Jury would he first beard, and then
counsel might submit disputed points oi
IaN for discussion 81 pleasure. The jury
might render a general verdict bat could
MOI lrass upon points o. law
Dsvidre said there were certain organic
roiuts fhst snould be settled before argu-
rneufs beean. For insfs1ce. there was
come doubt ns to the stat1te upon which
he indictments we're based. whether upon
section $3.50 q the Revised Statutes, or upon
the cct 81 Iay llth- ltlt-
The curt remarked that where there
vrr-e - many statutes i would BE- safe 70
sboot into The block in hope Of bringing
Dsridrs s.tscbed greet rsirht % the
point rer1rding tie stet-ie Epqiica5le %
fhe cnse
C~-rrrrer derrarced frrn re rDvrrn-
rrrrIf 4 ststerneut q Their position in fhe
rnaftef. bui he demand Vas not compiled
wIrn.
Tss curt finally agrssi % bsz-s-Eunen'
rpor tbt polrf aiie- reofs7-