National Republican., 1883-02-24

The court said II was tho purpose Of tho
cross examination TO show that the memo
randum had been written by the witness
The affidavit Of juno, 1881, was read, where
Rerdell says he has learned TO initiate Dor
sey's handwriting and signature so like his
own that he Dorsey could not tell il from
his own. Tho court then read from Rcrdcll's
testimony his denial of the truth of this state
ment The defense had right TO cross
examine him upon any documents written
by him in the simiitudc Of Dorsey's hand
writing and would have the right to contra
diet him, but thOy would have to produce the
paper.
Me-. Ingersoll. We have not got the papers,
and will have to ask the witness what he
done with the paper. The witness said he
showed memorandum IN ink, not pencil to
Mcssrs. James, MacVcagh and Woodward.
Outside of the books, witness showed Mcssrs,
MacNcagh aud Woodward two balance sheets
of the books. They had been written by
James w. Donclly. Gave them to Dorsey ON
July 13, 1882 when he made the affidavit
Dorsey had demanded them of him.
Mr.. lngcrsoll sharply arraigncd the witness
for his failure to state that fac during his
recital of the incidents of that conversa-
tion.
The witness was required to again relate
the conversations at Willard's hotel. He
demanded that Mr.. Ingersoll put his questions
in a simpler form. That gentleman, striking
tha table, said forcibly: You must not
dictate TO nc have treated You with the
utmost kindness, and you must not dictate to
me-"
The court said the questions must he an
swercd and the witness proceeded accordingly.
Mr.. Ingcrsoll made n sharp cross.cxamina-
tion upon the subject of the balance sheet
The witness said he told Dorsey he had
them but he did not know when ho told him.
Dorsey certainly knew Of their existence,
because IL had appeared in the evidence given
in the police court.
The witness was closely pressed upon this
subject but the court finally interposed.
At that conversation, said the witness, other
papers were spoken of, among them copies of
the Oregon correspondence with the Wilcox's.
This correspondence witness had copied by
Miss Nettic l.. White, stonographer Had
| told Dorsey that he had those copies a week
or ten days previous TO July 10, and surren-
dcrcd them to him on that occasion. Witness
said he had in his possession before July 13,
| 1882 the Wilcox correspondence the balance
| sheets, and the book with the smith entries,
that he had brought from New York.
| Mr.. Ingersoll asked him TO explain why,
with all of this evidence in his possession, he
was afraid of Dorsey.
Witness reiterated his answer that he was
afraid of prosecution for perjury. Speaking
of the reference to Tyncr aud Turner, witness
said he desired TO correct his statement. His
| impression now was that he did not show any
memorandum about Tynor and Turner, but
| did tell Woodward of tho charge against
| them; on the other hand he may have shown
| the memorandum. Did tell MacNCagh that
money had been paid to Lillcy and McGrcw.
| Had told Woodward that he would lose
| $4,000 year, and may have mentioned his
father-in-law, but did not ask to have him
| provided for. Had told ex-senator Clayton
| of the steamboat routes and the Jennings
claim. Also said he would like to get a clerk
ship for his iather-in-law Witness told Clay
ton, in speaking of what he would lose by
! going over to the government, that there was
about S400 due him on account of the Jcn-
nings claim, and that he could not get that
! from Dorsey or BOsler Was prosecuting this
claim indirectly for Dorsey, who had large
| interest in it,
Mr. Ingersoll. Did you expect to collect that
claim for Dorsey by going over to the govern
ment?
A. OF course not
q. Didn't you tell Clayton that If you got
| your share of the government claim, if your
| fathcr-in-aw was given a government posi-
! tion, and if your steamboat route was restored
you would testify for the government
| A. No, sir.
Witness knew when he went over to New
York to get the book for the attorney general
that II was Dorseys property.
q. Did you expect to steal it?
Objection made and sustained, although
Mr.. lngcrsoll contended that il was clear
case of larceny.
Witness said he walked into the office, and
picked up the book in the presence of the
bookxceper That gentleman must have seen
him do this, because he stopped and spoke to
him (thc bookkeeper), holding the book ul-
der his arm in plain sight. Witness was in
some doubt as to the expression by Dorsey
that "he didn't want to be saved by him. or
that there was nothing to be saved FROM
Did not now recolect whether that statement
had been made verbally by Dorsey, or was
communicated by him to the witness by tele-
graph. In reply to Mr.. Ingersoll the witness
said he had repeated all that he could romem-
ber of the conversation in DOrsey's room in
New York, but possibly might have omitted
something.
The court said it would not be fair to draw
an inference unfavorablc to the witness from
his failure to remember any further circum-
stance.
Mr. Ingersoll. don't want this witness
discreditcd by the inference i am not rely
ing upon anything as weak rs inference,
Witness did not send the dispatch from Jer-
sey City TO put Dorsey of his guard.
Mr.. lngersoll During the last trial did you
not tell John McSweeny, then attorney in
this case that you did not bring any book
from New York;
A. / do not remember telling him that.
q. Would you remember lie like that?
The court. That is not the language in
which the question should be put.
Mr.. lngersoll. Didn't you tell McSwccny
that you had a shirt wrapped up in piece of
paper that you palmed of on james for a
book =?
A. l do not remember any such conversation.
Counsel for defense insisted upon II more
specific answer, but the court decided ii to be
sufficient.
Mr.. Ingersoll asked whether he had not
told these things about the book to Mr., Car
penter, adding that he had shirt instead of
| u book under his arm.
| He answered that he did not remember any
such conversation. He might have had q
conversation with Carpenter, but IL was in
his capacity as counsel. He might have sug-
gested something of that kind to counsel for
adoption as u theory of defense. Laughter ]
The court did not think it proper to in
quire into q conversation between u client
and his counsel.
Mr.. Ingersoll denied that Mr.. Carpenter had
been Rerdells counsel s
The court remarked that there seemed to
have been close communion between the de-
PENDANTS during the last trial.
Still Mr.. Ingersoll insisted that Rerdell
was not Carpenters client, and that he had u
right to go into the conversation.
Mr., Merrick declared that il had been the
custom of courts to arrest any inquiry into
the relations between counsel and client. If
they went into one theory Of defense, why
could he not 60 into other theories The
court would not allow that, therefore he
would object.
Mr.. Ker declared that the government was
prepared to prove by other evidence that 1t
L n = Nl.a .IR