The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-03-29

family lie knows full well when Dorsey |
and Boslef have no iise fof him he may ~ !
10 the devil, for oil they care. Mr.. lngef. |
soil describes the red account BOOKS, ana
witness said he never saw such books In
any Of his offices. l,eerdell never
gave or sent TO him any balance
sheets from such books, Referring
10 Recrdells statement that he brought
away book from New York, witness de-
nied that he had ever seen such book or
that book hal oeen taken from the New
York Office The only books kept by Reer-
dell Tor witness In the city were an expense
book aud route book. Hold
ing twenty.eight checks In his
hand, lngersoll offered to put them in EVIL
dence, rs representing all the moneys
drawn by Dorsey in the month OF June,
| 1870 from Middleton d Co. lie handed the
checks to the prosecution, with the 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. -.
Ingersoll-" You have man who does"
Merrick-" He never said ne saw the
check drawn"
Ingersol-' know he is in hole"
Merrick-"Not much of hole"
Ingersoll-"It would not take much of a
hole to hide him [Laughterl; but let us
have peace"
| MefrlCk-' Inc gentleman snakes MS Hs'
and then runs around the barn."
AT the request of the court lngersoll
picked out checks payable to Dorsey. Mr.
: Bliss renewed the objection made this morn
, ing to the checks. The court held that
the case was different. The of
fered evidence might be defective
or incomplete, but with the understanding
! that it would be shown that these were all
OF the checks drawn in that month, the
evidence would be admitted. The checks
were then read in detail. Ingersoll renewed
his request to the prosecution to pick out
any checks upon which money could have
been drawn to pay Brady. He would then
trace the check. The prosecution sat silent
and the examination proceeded. lngersoll
requested witness TO explain how he came
to be connected with the mail business,
} He said he received letter in 1879.
: either from John w. Dorsey or Peck. The
letter not being produced witness was not
allowed to repeat its contents. AS con-
sequence Oh receiving that letter witness
was employed TO act for Peck and John
w. Dorsey. Personally, witness had not
the slightest interest in the world in any
contract or bid for mail service. The letter
tosCendennin was read. Witness admitted
its authorship and was about to explain his
motives for writing it, when the prosecu-
cution objected. Ingersoll argued it was
proper to show witness motive,
witness it was proper TO inquire into his
motives. Merrick replied at some length,
declaring that under such construction it
would be possible for a defendant to ex-
\ plain away grave charge of premeditated
motives. The court, however, held differ
ent view, and said it was proper to prove a
motive whenever it could be done, and that
the inquiry went as far as human testimony
could enlighten it. AS rule, witnesses
were not allowed to explain motive, be-
cause they knew nothing about it,, but in
this case the inquiry would be allowed.
Without hearing the answer the court ad-
ljolrned.