National Republican., 1884-12-02


counsel for tho defense, informed the |
court that Gen. Grosvenor, to whom the
duty of examining witnesses had been |
assigned by the defense, having been de-
tanned in Ohio in the trial of case, and |
both he aud Judge Wilson asked the court
to adjourn until Wednesday, In spite OF
the fact that Judge Shellabarger and Gen.
Grosvenor had entered into an agreement
to 20 on peremptorily yesterday.
The Judge advocate opposed the con-
tinuanoe. He said that this court was
ordered on the both Of June last; that
Gen, Swain had been given the unusual
and exceptional line Of five months in
which to get ready for trial, and in the
interests Of tho due administration Of
Justice, he insisted that the case should
proceed according to the terms Of the
agreement when the last adjournment
was taken.
The court decided to refuse the request
Of the defense.
The Judge advocate at once proceeded
to the taking of testimony, saying that 1t
was not the practice In military courts for
counsel to make any opening presentation
Of the case.
Mr.. ]. Stanley Brown, the first witness,
testified that he know the accused and
knew Mr.. A. Il. Bateman, and that he
(witness) was a member Of the firm OF
Bateman & Co. from November, 1881, to
the middle of July, 1882. Previously to
that time he had been with Gen. Garfield
as his private secretary. The business Of
Batoman & Co., he said, was general
banking and brokers business During
the time of his (witness) connection with
the firm they had some transactions with
Gen. Swain, who had an account with
them. A statement of the stock trans
actions Of everyone operating in stocks
with the firm was furnished to them on
the first Of every month, and oftener If
requested. There was no exception to
this rule made in tho case Of Gen. Swain.
A question asked at this point by the
judge advocate-what the witness know
as the correctness Of these statements
was objected to by Judge Wilson, who
said that the defense would insist upon
seeing the accounts themselves.
The question was Withdrawn, and wit
ness was asked who scrutinized the state
ments sent out by the Arm.
He replied that they wero scrutiniEed
by members of the firm.
The judge advocate here asked the de-
fense for the account furnished Gen.
Swain for the period terminated July i,
1882.
1t was not IN court, and q recess was
taken while Gen. Swain sent for it and
for other papers in his possession asked for
by the prosecution.
When the court reconvened, the account
asked for was handed to the witness, who
said that 1t showed that Con. Swain on
July 1. 1852, was indebted to the firm in
the sum of $347. Witness said he could
not recollect that any complaint was made
NV Gan Swaipo shnut this
Witness was examined at some length
concerning loan of 5000 received by
him from Gen. Swain. He testified that
Gen Swain had in May 1882, loaned him
5000 with which to increase his wit
uess) interest, in the firm Of Bateman Il
Co. The terms upon which this loan was
made, were that witness was to pay Gen.
Swain per cent. interest upon the loan,
and 10 per cent Of his (witness) profits
Co., as long as he hold the loan. The
sum loaned him consisted Of $1,000 in
cash and draft on the National Metro
politan bank for $4,000. The latter was af-
terward withdrawn by Gen. Swain who
gave him instead Of it, draft for $1,000
on the National Metropolitan and draft
of 81 900 on Bsteman & Co., signed by
Gen. Swain and made payable TO his
(witness) order. The draft on the Metro
Bateman & Co. was not cashed, and on
witness severing his connection with
Bateman & Co. in July, 1882, $5, 900 was
passed to Gen. Swaims credit with Bate
man & Co., and the 81 900 draft that had
not been csshed was placed to his debit.
Gen. Swain was notified of the passage Of
the So, 900 to his creditan of the 81 ,0OC
to his debit The fact OF the passage Of
the 5000 to his credit made it subject tc
his check.
Witness was asked whether he had evei
had any conversation with Gen. Swain
on the subject of the payment by the lat
ter of the 81 900 draft on Bateman & Co.
which he (Swaim) had given witness rs
part of tho $1,000 loan. He replied tina
he had no further conversation with hin
on the subject than to say that the firm
would be glad to have him cash it. The
payment. he said, was not strenuously
insisted upon, the firm knowing that Gen
Swain was good for il 900. Gen. Swain
reply vas, he said, that it was not con
venient for him to pay 1t at that time
Witness was then asked as to the circum
stances attending his withdrawal from
tho firm Of Bateman & Co., and as to Gen
Swaim's knowledge of his withdrawal
He said he had written letter to Gen
Swain, informing him of his intention
to withdraw from the firm, and this let
Ter Whh reau TO tue court. IL stateu ina
witness, having had fair trial of tn
business and become thoroughly familia
with Its workings, had become convince
that it would not be congeial TO him.
In answer to further questioning wit
ness stated that the draft for 81 900 oi
Bateman & Co. was never to his knowl
edge accepted by the firm.
On cross-examination witness testifie
that Nichal, Hatch g. Co., bankers ant
brokers of New York, were partners i
the firm of Bateman & Co., the arrange
ment being that they purchased stock
for Bateman & Co. on account Of the lat
ter. Wm. Mcclure succeeded Nicha
Hatch Il Co. as partners with Bateman ,
Co. on the same arrangement. WitneE
was then asked what obligation he as
sumed upon entering into partnershi
with Bateman & Co. rs to contribution
to the capital stock or business of tn
firm.
Tho judge advocate objected to thi
question, and IL was withdrawn, an
the question whether he had or had nc
an arrangement by which no was to cor
tribute anything to the capital stock {
tho firm was substituted.
Tho judge advocate objected to this q
NINA gerial, irrelevant, and improper.
Judge Shcllabarger said that the d,
fcnse should not be confined by the teci
nical rules Of evidence in conducting til
cross-examinations in the case.
A long argument between counsel fol
lowed. Tho court won't into secret SO,
sion, and on tho roopening of the door
the judge advocate announced that hi
objection was not sustained.
Tho question was again put to the vii
neSs, who answered that he had had n
absolute arrangement with Bateman
Co. TO contribute anything to the fnan
cial capital Of tho armj thore was a
arrangement that ho was to contribut