The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-12-11
Thu "BaODtERS' TRIAL
RESUMED WITH "SQUEALER"
DUFFY ON THE STAND.
He is Lashed by the TOrmentOr, New
eOmbe, Who Is In Turn Embar-
raised by the Witness.

NEW YORK, December i0.-Today's
session OF the McQuade trial opsned
little late. The prosecuting lawyers
were late, but all the rest were on
hand waiting to begin. SOU aer"
Duffy was again placed in the chair to
he lsshed by bis merciless toImeDtor
NeWcumbe. Defy thought he and
Fullgraff had talked over what they
were to say Oh MtQuads's trial in
Police Insp ctor Byrnes's office, pre-
vious to the first trial, but lad nol
done so since. On that occasion Full
graft had refreshed his memory on
certain points. Mr.. Newcombe tried
to show that on this point Duffy hal
contradicted previous testimony, but
his questions were excluded So mis-.
leading the witness. The redirect ex-
animation began by Mr.. Nicoll, in
irving to extricste the testimony of
the witness from its muddled condi-
ton. To the question if Duffy had
sworn falsely on the first trial, the
witness replied that be had made
mistakes, as he had poor memory.
"Mr. Duffy" spoke up the Re-
corder, yesterday you testified that
you swore falsely before the Senate
Committee because you were tod to
so testify. Who tod you what to
testifyf"
"Mr. Newcombe," answered Duffy.
Mr.. Newcombe arose, his face pallid
and lips blanched: "At this point"
lie uttered, "of the Gaze l ask permits
sion to take the witness stand in my
own behalf in regard to this matter"
"Not now, Mr.. Newcombe," replied
the Recorder; call in good time"
Gen. Tracey a'so arose and demand
ed thst his associate be permitted 10
defend himself ON 80 foul a charge,
declaring that when member Of the
bar must deal with such people es the
witness he was open to such charges,
and he was entitled to an opportunity
TO defend himself.
The Recorder said that Mr.. New
combe should be allowed to make a
statement, but that he would not
have any speech making now. Duffy
was then dismissed.
John +. Thompson, broker, swore
that on the 18th Of December, 1884,
McQuads bought ock from him and
paid 70 it &5987 in bills of large de-
nominations.
George B. Powell, a mechanical en-
gineer, who had an Office with Robin
son, Scribner & Bright, knew "B lily"
Maloney. Saw him frequently in
1884 in Robinson, SCribner 4 Bright's
Offices, where the Broadway Surface
Railroad Company also had their
office. Witness saw MaloneY there At
the time Of the special meeting OF the
Aldermen, August 30th.
J. Francis Herman, the reporter,
who was present ct this meeting, was
called but did not respond, and an
officer YVES sent in search of him.
Lawyer Newcombe stated that he had
received two letters threatening him
with per onal violence if he did not
"let up" on Alderman Duffy. He
says that he was warned that Michael
Duffy was going to attack him from
the witness sand, AID that he had
prepared 10 meet the charge OF Duffy.
He wished to read in court paper
constituting written statement by
the Aldermen, made at the time OF
their engagement OF him as their
counsel, before the Senate Committee,
In that statement they one and all de-
MED that they bad any connection
with the alleged bribery in the matter
of the Broadway franchise. This was
to be his answer 10 the charge py
Duffy that he had committed perjury
before the Senate Committee by in.
structons of Mr. Newcombe.
Mr.. Newcombe farther stated that
one Of the threatening letters was evil
IDENTIFY written by an educated person;
it was signed Justice" He had
thrown the letters away.
Ex-Alderman Charles B. Waite wss
then called as witness for The people.
Waite retold his version of the events
of the memorable year OF 1884 Ii did
not differ from tbs story told on the
former trial.
After this a recess was taken.
Wales testimony was continued
after recess He swore that tire doors
of the AldeTmanic chamber vera
locked at the secret meeting in Au-
gust, 1884.
The next witness was J. Frank
Herman. He was the City Hall re-
porter who Fl st made public the pro-
ceedings of the ''boodle" Aldermen in
the secret meeting. He was at the
City Hall early that morning and saw
several Aldermen 30 up the stairs
toward the chambers, de, too, went
up aud entered The Cloakroom, open
ing the door with his private key. He
could see into the chamber from the
cloakrcom. Alderman Waite was in
the chair. Herman had previously
tried to enter by the public door, but
it was locked, so ne entered he closE-
room. Witn5ss heard the Broadway
franchise bill mentioned end waited
no longer, but left to write up his
news.
On his cross examination. Herman
told Mr.. Newcomb9 that he heard
only this mention, and did no. wait t.
hear what action was taken. he did
not know Whistler the door opened in
ward or outward, and had not investi
gated this point since. Witness went
to Morrow's barber shop about 10
o'clock, and found Alderman 0'Neil
there. He talked with him. Morrow
was industriously preparing Alderman
Wendell for shave.
On the redirect examination wit
ness stated that il was fortunate, be-
cause the Alderman gave him the in
formation which made ii possible for
him to finish his report.
Osborn +. Bright, of the law firm of
Robinson, SCribner & Bright, was the
next witness. The f I'm acted as coun-
sci for the Broadway road in 1884.
He related the story OF Lawyer
Lyddy's procuring an injunction 10
prevent the 1884 Board Of Aldermen
from passing the franchise over
the Mayors veto, and the manner in
which the injunction was dissolved
by the payment Of Sl2, 500 to Lyddy.
The order vacating the Injunction was
granted by Judge Bartlett, Of Brook
lyn, on the evening of August go,
1884. He saw Maloney receive a copy
of the order from James Richmond,
president OF the Broadway road. Wit
ness identified, as prepared in his
Office in type writer, copies OF the
Railroad Committee's report, the reso-
lutions censuring the Mayor for his
veto Of the bill, and in fact all OF the
documents accompanying the resolu-
Nsnp f,r tho fro nl,too