National Republican., 1883-04-14
THE DEFENSE OBJECTED.
They Wernt Pleased With Any Of the Evi-
denCe offered by Mr., Bliss Yesterday.
The Best Part Of the Day Taken UP with
Beginning OF the End.

Arguments-Beginning OF the End.
Mr.. Bliss continued to put in proof of tho
destruction Of kilograms when tho star route
trial was resumed yesterday morning. Charles
and Benjamin Sargent, Of Brooklyn, testified
that they were truckmen in the employ of
the Western Union Telegraph company, and
that they had collected the old dispatches
from the offices in the vicinity Of the Albe-
marie hotel New York, and taken them 20
tho supply depot Of the Western Union Tele-
graph company. Mcssfs. Spellmau and Atch
inson, employees of the Western Union Tele-
graph company in New York; Barber and
May, employees of George w. Miller & Co., of
New York, and Hubbard, an employo of the
Chemical Paper company, Holyoke, Mass,
testified as to the disposition of the dispatches
up to tho time of their destruction in tho
paper mill.
Lewis Newcomb, New York postofiice in
spector, testified that by or der of Postmaster
General James, he had followed Rerdell
across the ferry on June Il or u, 1881:
Mr.. Bliss explained that he proposed TO show
that Torrcy had made a misstatement when
he said that Rerdell did not go to Dorseys
Office on that day.
Mr. Ingersol insisted upon specific state
ment; If the government wished to provo
that Rcrdell went there after o'clock he
would withdraw his objection, but If they un-
dertoOk to prove their own witness to be
liar he would insist upon it.
Mr.. Bliss maintained that they were trying
to contradict Torroy, who said that Rerdell
was not at the Office upon that day, and not
trying to oorroborate Rerdcll us to the specific
hour, 12 o'clock, OF the visit.
Mr. Chandler objected to the testimony, be-
cause IL was original evidence and not proper
matter for rebuttal.
Mr.. Merrick argued in support of the offer.
The Witness he said, has seen Rerdell go into
the Office. Perhaps Torrey had been mis-
taken and that Rcrdell did go into the Office
without his knowledge. If so, tho material
fact to the governmcnt-that he did enter the
Office would he made out.
Mr.. Davidgo maintained that specific
statement was required from the other side.
From their silence upon the question OF time,
ii was only fair TO assume that the detective
business had been done early in the morning;
that the visit had not been made at noon, as
sworn TO by Rerdell. The government could
put up lie then pull it down and put up
something else. II was not equitable that
they should be allowed to experiment upon
the defendants. The government had slept
upon Rerdells statement for days; II was a
very good lie as long as it served the purpose
of the government. If they believed that
witness lied, they owed it to the court to
justice, to make II known.
Judge Wylie interrupted to say that the
court did not expect that of counsel.
Mr.. Ingersoll remarked that Rerdell had
placed the hour of his visit at 12 o'clock, after
he had discovered that Torrey was at sea.
Mr. Dayidge, continuing, said that the de-
Tense had brought Torrey back 5000 miles for
the purpose of mailing that lie. OF course
court could relax the rule and admit piece
of original evidence at this stage but the
foundation should first be laid, and the gov
ernment insisted upon being mum" upon
that point.
Mr.. Henkle reminded Mr.. Merrick that he
had promised the jury to corroborate Rerdells
testimony in every point; otherwise his tes-
timony stood discredited.
Other counsel also made argument upon the
point.
After the recess, in answer to a question
from the court, Mr. Bliss said that he ex-
pected to prove by the witness that Rerdell
went into Dorsey's office at 10 o'clock. He
admitted that he had known before of the
existence of the offered evidence, but said
that had not been put in, because as not re-
gardcd as necessary to the case.
The court began its decision with review
Of RerdelPs testimony. Rerdell evidently
meant to say that he got the book after he
left Dorsey the offered evidence might lead
to prove that he got II before. 1t therefore
appeared that the evidence tended to make
out II state of facts different from that de-
scribed by Rerdell. The prosecution had a
right to put on another witness when they
were not satisfied with the statements of the
original witness. But that was evidence in
chief, and IL was not proper to admit such
evidence, after having caused the defence to
contradict the other witness. Even as tend
ing to oontradicting ToTey, the evidence
was inadmissable.
The witness was therefore directed TO stand
aside. and Mr. Bliss called James w. Donnely,
the bookkeeper who had Strengthened out the
books. He was asked when he had last re-
ceived money from Dorsey.
Objection was made by the defense, and
sustained by the court. A scrap OF paper
bearing some notes was shown to the witness,
who said that the handwriting was that of
Rerdell and of himself. 1t was offered to
sustain RerdelPs testimony regarding his cor
respondence with Torrey about the balance
sheets. The witness identified the paper as a
memorandum from which entries had been
made in the books.
Some discussion ensued upon a proposition
by the court to meet at an earlier hour in the
morning, but it was decided to continue un-
der the present arrangement.
DIR. james Rerdell, of South Carolina, was
the next witness called. He testified that he
was brother of NJ. @. Rerdell; knew that
the latter went to New York in June, 1881,
The witness said that he went with his
brother to the postoffice on Monday or Tues
day after his return from New York, and his
brother received letter.
The defense objected at this point, and the
prosecution was called upon for an explana-
tion of their offer.
Mr.. Merrick said that the witness would
testify that his brother had received a letter
from Dorsey, as described by Rerdell in his
testimony, importuning him not to desert
him, but to stand by him for the sake of his
wife and family and the witness had read
the letter. Another argument followed, but
the court finally decided to reject the evil
dence aud the witness was excused. Thejury
was then dismissed until Tuesday next, and
the court proceeded to consider the subject of
the division of time to be allowed for the
closing arguments Mr.. Bliss said that the
prosecution expected TO close soon after the
next meeting Of the court, and he presumed
that the defense would not take much more
time. A general discussion took place in re-
gard TO the arguments and the prayers to be