New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-10-03
GOV HILLS CANAL RAID
z-om NE EARNED A $4,000 FEE.
o,,vv,xo THAT A LAWYER APPEARED To-"
TEsiif 80 VINO WAS AGAINST THE STATE

W. - Gov Governor At the time OIL tuo
canuiu a., un uas only thirteen years old Dut ho
~ III, a fow miles from Millport ana 'VS'ino"
- .I,o committee that he had genera N"'
oaoa of the circumstances. lie pes"'i 'No t-aii
90 low in 1sG4 and in 1868 he iOrieu "
Ill q T. Smith But apparently IL noNoi nood
to Mr. Hill until several years l'tcr '""s w. etote
&c 1s57 was due to the negligence VI ~ I'll, IN
uannilv for him, at the time he ooS", IN these
veaIize the damage the state h'u 10 was a
;nnocent Chemung County larIhoi', the county
certain Edward l.. Patrick repreSo"' pa+rick who
=; .hs LEGISLATURE This was the same loter
III 'i 49,, 20 between ut the time Tweed Se''i
was sio -, intorest in Mr.. Hills he"SPAp-
49, hoinc in the Legislature lhuuo !, 80 t,,oa
UuI 20 cot his bill passed whicn oi'"tn noJ
A. &c nc, into these ancient claims
'no ,".',ts boep aware of the relation'T'P
.h0 o'' I,i,, ord Patrick and Patrick anu ,I,n
;-nt have been able to real'A0 Ho" 49,, +ho
~ noord TO take up these Claims "nu a;'+io,
oo citing a bill passed ana an aPplo' LIS
risk oi So, them. Eighty five thousand uoii''''
.,ot n large sum in the eyes Oh 'n0 ,,s
ots Of those days. but one nan Ol 'n"' . tI,;ro
0oasideroble IN the eyes OF the riS'is ho
,sn,,,or. and according to DIS o"" rho
oo,nod his big fec without any atuuo o - for
,,ooriro Was in Elmira and Mr' IHl "IpN Ill
,bo claimants. How the case was w. +csfi.
annear from the following extracts i''D'
mony: ~ e.o,o on that hearingl A
Q|Mn 10 smith; no relation TO u l,aated law
o-Was it pretty steanf WIS CONCERNED contested
n the best could. , - ,,o, A-Ou The other Sid6 Il
~ ea yG take this book of the record OF inc pro
ceeng OF trial and state t6S Banks case the
of testimony there Was taken w 'N0 "'
oaso1I Fourteen anu hdi that was given,
'OLThat embraces ali inc tTs'iin nn The question
so lar h This canal contributed TO piooHT onEs's
damages and on the quest9n VI 'H Yes sir. Judge
GAIL don't think took down ali inc ICE lie hart Of
O~Wl you give the witnesses c9 fhcre ,ree none ha
the state in that Banks case! Anu
@I 8%Is that according to your memory
not have t have recoleced. in trying SloVVV
case, whether me olected the fact whether Mr
McWhoTter was called by the cIaiin"H'' "a 20
of the state the character of the testimony Ad bG
s,Ntre Tor the claimants upon Oohi' i,, .,
the fact that ne was LAWYER whctheryO thmk that
.,, Csc WAS contested with inc 'iiotrn reomred
part of the STATE taS was concerned think that II was
A-So far rs its tilaI 49, LAWYER employed 10
o-Suupose yourself wheth55I q acain of ike charac.
oeen4 o yoi think You had deienueu IL W." fTist
sk where you didn't can sna yvb.t was sworn TO- II
depehus mat the evidence given was rue "
youdn overthrow It, say I'LL m nyertnrow III A.
Q-l0u INC case say no. So far as tLs case Vas
conGercd THINK that was t6 de of the con
.XrSrf AIihat is evident; yes ST. oo,nsl sitting
0GIiow much time, how many IS hearing OF these
OF inis 1.-TWO full days ana haii Oh
recollection IN taking the testimony or the question OF
,;aiIitI and ther taking the testimony on All to-
damages in the various twenty 7o"0
sonewas there much of contest on In nyv nc6 dis
danagesl Al don't thln N 'ne,T had Suffered
p9ie aIoSt muee was tic amount of Mr. BanSss
exclusive OF interest A-Iw0 iCu item[
O-And in each item is stared I1o I'M or amounts
tIRk so Was any witness examined upon the sob
iecfs al these amounts or value, cLcePI tus '''"
J eGtsd 10 ME nueston about III A-1es' sI
Q-whoi A.Ilepry N, J Rat.,s testimony OF the
ioct ON the direct examination. upon the quCstlVh "
bis damage. A-[Mr Hill read II ana " HAUL Ju'' nag
EN- GLTSeS Judd was examined yalues' Ayes
sE ,bout how many folios of direct examination
A;oIISASd how much of crOss-examinationi A.-I"o
lines, i, only one Iinei AIN 1867 the mill run
except IN inc WI Examination Of Mr. Juddi A
Yes, sir. A., .ov. cosc and rive the names OF
the witnesses caledl A.-AugustGs bot5'IGiu- Mana
n Hoy manv witnesses for the Statc a. -'oHo
Q-How many Witnesses Tor Inc ei"n"N'' ~
10 the other cases as general thing were only
claimants calcQi Is ludL sNNA
vi" nne each Of these claims there large number
oAnd the items. most of them. involved things Oh
Quantity and things on valutf A a' I,o,,, ror
O-Take for instance the case OF LOCKE. Don va
think some inquiries could have been ulrec'cG ~
to where he got that eight tons OF IRON tno'
"os nn1 II s.ate the quantity there ANo, SIR;
that il I'm the award; it Is speaking OF the items
O-Iook at Locke's claimi A-los' ST. IL says SIX
oGS o. yH nn think an individual contesting that case
wond have made some inquiry where the IRON aho
snjkes came from All he had any doubt that Locks
lad them i'm his extensive boat yard then thlnk II
"9uc HaTo thnE there s 500 pounds Of white lead
Don't Won think Jealous counsel would have made ahl
question about iti Ale would II ne haa any
o%And then there is that oakuml Alt didn'
SUI Fbe nToof is that the oakum sunk down tina
they cond rot find it, and tho lead nOaed away; the
you think upon the whole they must nave taken tues
caimants as fair and not made any contest on th
truth of their claims Al think they were taken a
fair men and they made just tho contest that appear
o.You think it is assumed that they wouldn't al
anything against tho state that was hot wsn
msn, aud wouldn't swear very far Out OF the way II
o.-And so let it slide Al think have answered
oLYou were present on the trial Ayes, sir.
0-Do you know OF auy benefit at all that the counse
OF the state that hearing I A.-les sir. =,
DIN what Al think he cr0sS-eHalnIhe1 inc WIZ
pes,es aud was benefit to the state TO BEE that thes
parties had items Of their claims and sworc to IT,
O.-DOnt you lulDk mo UtIcuSt Va hln Na'' NOL
Quoted on the ground OF The old Dutch Justice, tina
Thought the plaintiff wouldn't bring case into court IN
less he had pretty good csiml Al suppose II was.
Q-The Commissioner wasn't present at any OF the IN
yestigatiOnsl Al think not.
O@You are aware that helaw requires that be shout
be notiaed aud should bc present. Al was not awar
OF ii; know that he is not In one case In ten.
Mr. Hill having testified that this case, invOy
ing $S5. 600, was we'll tried for the State, thong
no witness was called for il, and having turtle
testified that II. b. Smith appeared for the STATE
tie follow ing ex tracts from Ii. b. Smiths tCstIon
will prove nterestlng
state positively that was never retained TO dcfen
the state against these claims never had any OppO
tunity TO prepare any defence against these claims
my impression is that was spoken TO ON the mornin
Of the day that the hearing commenced; understOO
that was only to appear aud TO examine tho witnessC
produced on the part OF the claimants.
1t appcns from Mr.. Smiths testimony that on
Of the Canal Appraisers hearing these extraord