The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-04-19

WASHINGTON, April lS,--In the star
route trial this morning Bliss called John
X. Walsh, and asked ifhe had ever had any
money transactions with Brady.
Wilson objected, and the court called for
4 statement.
In response Bliss called attention to
Brady's denials upon this point, and OF.
fered to contradict him.
Bliss briefly related the alleged facts set
our in the published affidavit of Peck, that
in the summer of 1880, after the passage
of the star-Ioute deficiency appropriation
Dill, Price had been approached
by A. II. Brown, and requested to sub
scribe So COO to fund raised by the star
route contractors to deiray 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 be should be given part of the
service in return, and that money and all
iralts so subscribed by Price had been
placed upon Brady's desk. He would prove
that Brady had passed these drafts gwen 80
him by Price, who would be here to-day
lie also offered to prove that Brady had
requested witness TO deposit certain
sum OF money to his credit, and that Walsh
accordingly placed $1,000 with Hatch
Fl. Foote, of New York, to Brady's credit.
Wilson argued that the subject was
purely collateral in character and evidence
in that connection was not proper in the
rebuttal. He called attention TO the pend
ing civil suit of Walsh vs, Brady and assert
ted tnat 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 h, d the right TO
corroborate its witness by proof of what
had been described as collateral for thai
portion OF il.
The court did not perceive how proof
would establish the truth Of Walsh's state
ment of that conversation.
Merrick coLtended that proof would be
,uilicient to get the issue. He quoted
Walsh's testimony, wherein he says Brady
referred him to Price aud to Petersonis
drait, IN proof of his assertion that il was
the custom OF the second assistant post-
master'general to exact from contractors "A
portion OF the allowance for increase and
expedition. In denying the whole conver.
sation Brady had denied that statement
ard surely 1t 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 ont.
side of the case. Ii Brady had testified
untruly he could not be contradicted So.
,s to the Price and Peterson drafts. They
we're not connected with the matters sci
out in the indictment. They were
collateral, and the prosecution had no
right to rebut In that connection, Eyi.
dence in chief upon that point had been
rejected, and the court saw no reason To re-
consider that decision, IL was still more i'm.
proper upon rebuttal. The offer was there.
fore overfuled.
Merrick-"Well, your honor, that closes
the governments rebuttal."
Counsel for defense announced that they
We're all through. '
Now we come to the important part
the talk" said the court smilngly.
a question arose as to the procedure In
presenting prayers.
Merrick advocated an adherence 10 the
plan followed In the former trial.
llcnkle thought the court should limit
the argument by defining the law upon dis.
puted points.
Davidge believed the arguments would
cousume the remainder OF the wear unless
some such plan should be adopted.
In order to allow time for the prt marathon
of arguments on legal points, Bliss suggest.
ed recess until Friday.
The court dwelt upon the subject at some
length, carefully reviewing the methods Of
practice in different courts, ard con.
that II would be better 10 have
arguments on facts In the case