The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-28

I {
family, for he (Rerdell) also had family.
He knows full well when Dorsey and Bosler
have no use for him, he may go to the -,
for all they care.
Mr.. Ingersoll described the red account
books, and the witness said he never saw
such books in any of his Offices. Rerdell
never gave nor sent to him any balance
sheets from such books.
Referring to Rerdells statement that he
brought away book from New York, the
witness denied that he had ever seen such
book, or that book had been taken from
his New York office. The only books kept
by Rerdell, by the wituess's authority, were
an expense book and a route book
Holding twenty-eight checks in his hand,
Mr. Ingersoll offered to put them in evil
dence as representing all the money drawn
by Dorsey in the month of June, 1879, from
Middleton & Co. He handed the checks to
the prosecution with request that they
pick out the check upon which money had
been drawn to pay Brady.
The prosecution objected, because they
knew nothing of the checks.
Mr.. Ingersoll-You have man who does.
Mr.. Merrick-He never said he saw the
check drawn.
Mr.. Ingersoll-I know he is in a hole.
Mr.. Merrick-Not much of hole.
Mr.. Ingersoll-It would not take much of
hole to hide him. [Laughter.l But let us
have peace.
Mr.. Merrick-The gentleman shakes his
fist, and then runs around the barn.
At the request of the court Mr.. Ingersoll
picked out the checks payable to Dorsey.
Mr.. Bliss renewed the objection made this
morning to the checks.
The court held that the case was different.
The offered evidence might be defective or
incomplete, but with the understanding that
it would be shown that these were all the
checks drawn in that month, the evidence
would be admitted. The checks were then
read in detail.
Mr.. Ingersoll renewed his request that the
prosecution pick out any checks upon which
money could have been drawn to pay Brady
He would then, he said, trace the check.
The prosecution sat silent and the exam
alton proceeded.
NO PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE ROUTES.
Mr.. Ingersoll requested the witness to ex-
plain how he became connected with the
mail business. He said he received letter
in 1879, either from John w. Dorsey or from
Peck. The letter not being produced, the
witness was not allowed to repeat its con
tents. As a consequence Of receiving that
letter, the witness employed Boone to act for
Peck and John W. Dorsey. Personally, the
witness had not the slightest interest in the
world in any contract or bid for mail SER
vice.
4AC lOtISI W OlGIuGIQeil WAS TCdtl, anu lllG
witness admitted its authorship and was
about to explain his motives for writing it
when the prosection objected.
Mr.. Ingersoll argued that it was proper to
show n witness motive, and as the law
made the defendant witness it was proper
to inquire into his motives
Mr. Merrick replied at some length, de-
| claring that under such construction it would
be possible for defendant to explain away
grave charge of premeditated motive.
The court however, held different view
and said it was proper to prove a motive
whenever it could be DONE and that inquiry
went as far as human testimony could en-.
tighten it. AS rule, witnesses were not
allowed to explain a motive because they
knew nothing about it, but in this case the
inquiry would be allowed.
Without hearing the answer the court ad-
iourned.