Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1883-03-30

ras srAR ROUTE.
Dorsey Still on the Siand-Is Rerdell's
Testimony all Worthless!

WASHINGTON, Mar ~.
The star route trial was resumed in the
criminal court this morning. Ingersoll con-
tinuing the examination of Dorsey.
Ingersoll asked the witness if he had ever
given check to James Bedford. Witness
said he had never told Rerdell that he had
given check for 5000 to Bedford, nor told
him to charge the check for that or any other
amount to J. b. b. upon the books.
Iugersoli-Did you ever give check for
any amount to Belford:
AIswer-Not \ dollar. l never had =
transaction to the extent of one cent with
him, with the exception of what you stated to
the court the other day.
The witness also denies the other state
ments of Rerdell. He was present at a con-
versation between Rerdell and Bosler, about
June -, 90 or 81, at his house on ~
street. A pencil memorandum was the
subject OF the conversation. Rerdell was
telling Bosler that he had shown to MeVeagh
a memorandum in imitation OF the witness
handwriting. Rerdel went to the waste
basket, picked cut the pieces and laid them
on the table. The writing resembed the
witness handwriting SO closely that he was
unable to distinguish between them. but the
witness never wrote the memorandum.
After few unimportant questions the di
rect examination closed, and Merrick began
the cross examination.
Merrick pushed the inquiry in regard to
this subject, asking why Peck. who was out
there near the routes. had delegated to him
dorsey a senator of the United States the
work OF managing the routes.
The witness said he did not see why the fact
of his being a senator should disquality him.
Merrick reminded the witness Of his dis
lance from the routes, but the witness
adhered to his original statements.
The witness had no recollection of send
ing check for 1852. 60 to p. G. Reynolds;
did not know where John Dorsey was on
July IL, 1878. A letter was produced but
the witness had no recollection of signing
John Dorsey's name to it.
Merrick enjeavored to put the paper in
evidence, to show that under Peck's name
the witness had made those contracts. The
fact that the witness could not see the paper
was an obstacle that could not be removed,
and the attempt failed.
The court rendered an opinion of some
length on this subject, saying that the genu-
ineness of the paper had not been shown in
any way, and where the evidence was lost by
the death of a witness, or, as in the present
instance, by loss of sight, the court would
admit of those and not place them on evil
dence, and knew Of no relief from the con-
seque ,ces to parties afflicted.
Merrick then offered in evidence contracts
purported to be signed by Peck, with the
same object He ish TO show that Dorsey
signed Peck's name, and understood that the
objection would not apply as in the case of
latter.
An argument was again made at length
and this offer was also rejected.
The witness was next questioned at length
in reference to Miners movements during
1877 and 1878, but he did not recollect much
about them. The relations during that time
was pleasant.
Merrick tried to get the witness to make a
definite statement in regard to Miners loca-
ton in December and January, 1877 and rs,
but the witness declined to make any such
statement. When pressed he would respond,
II don't think anything about the matter"
'.How came Miner here in January, 1882"
inquired Merrick.
son the cars, presume"
He also refused to say positively whether
or not he had written to Miner to come here.
Miner usually stopped at witness house
when in Washington and used an Office in his
house where he prepared his bids. Witness
presumed he had recommended Miner to
in the mail business.
The witness never saw John Dorsey and
Miner at work together in office upon bids !;
might have seen John Dorsey and Boone at
work together but was positive that he (wit-
ness had nothing to do with the preparation
of the bids; did not know whether Peck did
any of the work.
Merrick inquired how it was that the es-
adjustment was working under the witness
roof and he knew nothing of it.
"What had to do with it," angrily re-
piled the witness.
That is not my question, but it is what
am going to find out" retorted Merrick.
'sYou had nothing to do with the business"
A.-No, sir.
Q.-Why did You promise Boone their in-
terest.
Al did not. l thought it it could be
arranged
Q-Why did you employ him?
AIN accordance with the letter from
Peck or John Dorsey.
Q-What were the instructions contained
in the letter?
Al do not remember.
Odd you tell Boone to write out West
about the routes?
A.-Yes.
Q.-Why?
A.-Because was requested to do so.
Q.-How, in the letter?
A.-Yes.
OIL thought you did not remember the
instructions contained in it!
Al do not remember anything else.
Judge Wylie adjourned the court until
tomorrow.