The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-03-29
Important Rulings by the Court
Star-Route Trial.

Star-lsoute lrial.
WASHINGTON, March 27.--Ingersoll con-
tinued his examination of Dorsey in the
star.route case. He was asked if he knew
whether he had drawn any check for $1,000
upon Middleton q Co., in June, 1873, as
described by Reerdell. He said he had
not drawn check for that amount, but did
draw check for 81 500 June 9th or 2Sth;
it was given TO Reerdell. The check was
sho wn and identified. Witness did not
draw money on the check.
The court did not believe this check was
referred 10 by ReerdeIl. Ingersoll argued
it was the cneck, and declared Reerdell had
forgotten the amount and the fact that he
endoise it. He purposed accounting Tor
every check drawn by Dorsey on Middle
toms bank He asked leave to read the
check to the jury. Merrlck maintained it
was not the check referred to. Ingersoll
had called Reerdell the pillar OF the prose-
cuton; that was not so. If all this testi-
mony were blotted out, there would remain
enough evidence to make out the case. The
pillar of the prosecution was oil the evil
dence, and not until they had pulled down
all of it would the structure be shaken.
Ingersol promised to produce every
check and to account for every dollar. Let
the prosecution consult with their witness
(Reredel), Who was assisting them. Then
let them specify the particular check and he
would trace the money.
Merrick-" Why did you not produce the
stub books"
Ingersoll-"You may get more stubs
than GU want"
After argument the court refused to allow
the check to be put in evidence. Wilson
moved to strike out, SO far as
Brady was concerned, ali that
Reredell had said about Dorsey's
drawing money from Middleton bank, be-
h,.,,l a,,I ni,,ry to
dy's. The court refused to entertain the
motion until all the checks had been Of
fered. The examination was then resumed.
Witness said that while it was possible he
had gone with Reerdell on June 9th to
draw money from Middleton's he did not
believe he had; did not go to the post
Office department and into Brady's room
as described by Reerdell; did not pay any
money to Brady on that or any other occa-
sion; did not draw check on Middleton d
Co., for $500 in June. Ingersoll asked il
any of them added together would aggre
gate, that amount. Witness said he
couldn't say, and could only report
what his clerk told him; after careful ex-
animation of the checks, probably for four
or five days in June, Reerdell had access to
witness check books. 1ngersoll referred to
Reerdell's statement of the contents OF
letter from Dorsey to Basler, inviting Bos-
Ter to assume an interest in the business,
setting out the financial state of the bust
ness and including an account OF indebted
ness to 1T. j. b." Witness said there was
not grain of truth in the story; he had
never written such letter to anybody in
the world, and never said anything was to
be paid to "T. J b" or any post-otfice Off
Gals. Ingersoll then referred to Reerdelfs
Statement that the papers had Leen taken
from his Office while he was in jail. Wit
ness said he had only entered that office
twice; Reerdell was there upon both occa-
sions; the last time was upon Reerdell's in
vitation, after his release from jail; Reer-
dell was closing up his Office and packed up
bundle OF papers which he took to wit
ness house and left there; that bundle
was still untouched and unopened at his
house; witness never had key
to that Office and did not enter it while
Reerdell was in jail. Reerdells statement
of the conversation at Wizards hotel, on
July %, 1882, when he was locked in and
ordered to make another affidavit, was
taken up. Witness said that some lime in
July, during the last trial, Reerdell at
tempted to blackmail Bosler. The state
ment was ruled out by the court. Witness
said he went to Bosler's room at Wizards
and found Reerdell there with Bosler; he
was protesting to Bosler that the allega-
tons as 10 what he (Reerdell had been do
ing, were untrue.
Al recess was taken at this point After
recess the grand jury came into court with
"A
the following: United States against
Thomas j. Brady for unlawiully receiving
money and postal drafts 10 the amount oil
81 ono while second assistant postmaster
general from James b. Price, as a reward
for making a contract for mail service with
Price on July 81, 1880 upon the star-route
from Socorro to Silver City, New Mexico;
against William Pitt Kellogg and Thomas
j. Brady for conspiracy on April IL, 1880, |
with James b. Price 10 de-
fraud the United States by means
of false oaths and fraudulent allowances for
expenditures and false and fraudulent |
claims 70 be made for increased pay for ex-
pedition on post routes from Monroe 10 |
Shreveport, Louisiana, and San Antonio TO /
Corpus Christi IN Texas. the said routes
being then In name Of James b. Price as
contractor; against William Pitt Kellogg, |
setting forth that on April IL, 1850, whilst
senator from Louisiana, he did unlawfully |
receive from James b. Price. contractor on
poet-routes from Monroe 10 Shreveport,
Louisiana and San Antonio 20 Corpus
Christi, TeTas, certain sum Of money, |
post-ofiice DRAFT and prOmisory note, to-
getber Of the value Of $1,000, for the ser
vice Of procuring. persuadiDg aud inducing
Thomas J. Brady, second assistant post
10 award and allow 10
Price an Increase OF pay and
Tor carrying mail with in
creased speed on aDd bver each Of said
routes. anu iNIIHHllN AAuutnllNE nLNlkA
Of said Brady therein. Another present
ment against Brady was for having
on or about April 18th, 1850,
whilst second assistant pOetmester-ge gen
eral. unlaufally received certain money,
noef-office drafts and a note, together being
on the value 81 $1,000 a. compensation for
The service Of awarding 10 James B. Price,
> mail contractor, q contract on each Of the
routes rom Monroe 10 Shreveport, Bouisi-
ana. and San Antonio 20 Corpus Christi 4
Texas. 10 carry mail with increased speed {
md for increased pay. The Witnesses I
named are John A. Walsh, James B. Brice,
Iosspn Cochrnn and J. W. Brady.
The examination Of witness was then re !
'umed- He denied broadly Reerdell's !
.inleInenf u the conversation ~ Nillsro's 4
noteI. and declared 4 was blsckmailing 4
'cherns on the pan Of Heerdell, who bad
'hrf1->.1. = 3 lfEvs Bosler melted and - .
= or~r u.,.is ---.llEnenti reEArelng me
Irf<<.- 81 jar, lss1, Which yes rad q
Jim. wines dsuisd rhst he bad ssked I
Ieer1eI % MAKE II for the sake Of bis
<ulIr. o. fhef he bad offered him any
11ncemeut. a lefrer dated July 5, n
- bT InrsrsolI Resrdel wrltes that be 7
|ss bsen consinerinK The step be vas about
. IsEs ior over = ye1r. He bad Intended
3 pnf fImsslIIn cDrnmunicsti0n With the ]
'Drsrnme1t before BE- uas indeed. Never '
|rs1rirr ftnt be ras liable % Indictment. .
: 4. - ~ ~ = Ii.ssned 3 Bo.isf Q
nj rsr-n1nsr = corrEs h. hnd regretted y
~ .'r|rs nn1 a1rIsItIrr bt Would not 30 4
rrIf ~ nrr ronsI1ernliDn- A. c1nse- e
..1.Ir. - L III pennies. 1n1 III - IN j
p = rIru1 ~ rnattr uhU he result u q
= - -. I. 7. e,- R'' ~ 80 {. :, /.
- ton IrIIrIrnsri 1nt perhaps IN rod :.
1.'I'rr Irr nr1Ir ~ I'D rna1t ~ ~ e
ne r. r. or ~ ~ rDTerEIuErt. 80 = Isl
rs.|<<. ~ UUEeT - 1prr1I m ne rrul a
Al. f.nII' ~ ~ 1n-sr1-lI rlD h.s 81