The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-11
THE M'QUADE TRIAL.
The Day Begins with Sensational Episode.
in Which Mr.. Newcombe Figures.


New YORK, Dec. 10.-To-day's session of the
McQuade trial opened little late. The prog
ecuting lawyers were late, but all the rest were
on hand waiting to begin. "Squealer" Duffy
was again placed in the chair. TO be lashed by
his rnercless tormentor, Newcombe Duffy
thought he and Fulgraff had talked over what
they were to say on McQuade's trial in Police
Inspector Byrness Office previous to the first
trial. but had not done so since. On that occa-
sion Fullgraff had refreshed his memory on cer-
tain points. Mr.. Newcombe tried to show that
on this point Duffy had contradcted previous
testimony, but his questions were excluded as
misleading the witness.
The redirect examination began by Mr.. Nicoll
trying to extricate the testimony eff the witness
from its muddled condition. To the question il
Duffy had sworn falsely on the first trial, the
witness replied that he had made mistakes, as
he had poor memory.
''Mr. Duffy" spoke up the Recorder. ''yester-
day you testified that You swore falsely before
the Senate committee because you were told to
so testify. Who told you what to testifylH
"Mr. Newcombe," answered Duffy.
Mr.. Newcombe arose, his face palid and his
lips blanched SAT this point" he uttered, "c6
the case, ask permission to take the witness
stand in my own behalf in regard to this mat
ter"
'sNot now. Mr. Newcombe," replied the Re-
corder; 'all in good time"
General Tracy also arose and demanded that
his associate be permitted to defend himself ON
30 foul charge declaring that when a member
of the bar must deal with such people as the
witness, he was open to such charges, and he
was entitled to an opportunity to defend himself
The Recorder said that Mr.. Newconbe should
be allowed to make statement, but that he
would not have any speech-making now. Duffy
was then dismissed.
John F. Thompson, broker swore that on
the 10th of December 1884, McQuade bought
stock from him. and paid for 1t S. $751; In bilis Of
large denominations
George B. Powell, a mechanical engineer, who
had an Office with Robinson Scribner s. Bright
knew BILLY" Moloney; saw him frequently In
1884 in Robinson, Scrlbner & Brlght's Offices
where the Broadway Surface Railroad Com
pany also had their office; the witness saw No,
loney there at the time OF the special meeting Of
the aldermen, Aug. 30.
j. Francis Herman, the reporter who was
present at this meeting, was called, but did not
respond, and an officer was sent In search OF
him.
Lawyer Newcombe stated that he had re-
ceived two letters threatening him with personal
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 stand, and that he was prepared to
meet the charge of Duffy. He wished to read In
court paper constituting a 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 denied that they had any connection with
the alleged bribery in the matter of the Broad
way franchise This was to be his answer to
the charge by Duffy that he had committed per-
jury before the Senate committee by instruc.
ton of Mr.. Newcombe Mr. Newcombe further
stated that one of the threatening letters was
evidently written by an educated person. IL
was signed Justice" He had thrown the let
tiers away
Ex-Alderman Charles B. Waite was then called
as witness for the people. Waite retold his
version of the events of the memorable year Of
1884 1t did not differ from the story told on the
former trial.
After this recess was taken
Waite's testimony was continued after recess.
He swore that the doors of the aldermanc cham
Der were locked at the secret meeting in August.
1884,
The next witness was J. Frank Herman. He
was the City Hall reporter who first made. pab-
lie the proceedings of the doodle" aldermen in
the secret meeting. He was at the City Hall
early that morning, and saw several aldermen
go upstairs toward the chamber. He, too, went
up and entered the cloak room, opening the door
with his private key. He could see into the
chamber from the cloakroom Alderman
Waite was 10 the chair. Herman had previously
locked, SO he entered the cloak-room. The wit
ness heard the Broadway franchise bill men,
toned, and waited no longer, but left TO write
up his news
On his REORGANIZATION Herman told Mr..
Newcombe that he heard only this mention, and
did not wait to hear what action was taken. He
did not know whether the door opened inward or
outward. and had not investigated this point
since. The witness went to Morrow's barber
shop about 10 o'clock. and found Alderman
O'Neill there. He talked with him. Morrow
was industriously preparing Alderman Wendell
for shave.
On the redirect examination, tie witness
stated that u was fortunate, because the aldes-
men gave him the information which made it
possible for him to finish his report.
Osborn X. Bright, Of the Law firm Of Robin
SOD. Scrihner s. Bright. was the next witness.
The hrm acted as counsel for the Broadway road
In 1854 He related the story of Lawyer Lyddy's
procuring an injunction to prevent the 1884
board OF Aldermen from passing the franchise
over tho Mayors veto, and the manner in which
the injunction dissolved by the payment of
$l2 800 to Lyddy The order vacating the in
junction was granted by Judge Bartlett,
OF Brooklyn, on the evening of Aug.
80, 1884. He saw Moloney receive copy of the
order from James Richmond. president Of the
Broadway road. The witness identified as pre-
pared in his Office, in type writing, copies OF the
railroad committees report the resolutions GEN.
surfing the Mayor for his veto OF the bill, and in
fact, all OF the documents accompanying the res
oution for the franchise. On cross-examination,
the witness said that he knew Waite and Wen
dell bat no other members Of the board of 1884.
The work of drawing up the document was COM
mon work The order vacatipg the Injunction
was obtained from the only Judge who could
legally grant it at that time. The whole pro-
ceedngs in the case were in accordance with
common customs among lawyers.
James NJ. Lyddy, lawyer, was sworn. he tes-
tilted that he acted as counsel for his brother.
John II. Lyddy, Greenwich grocer, 10
procuring the injunction. The witness said that
John ii. Lyddy signed the consent to the DISCO
LUTON Of the Injunction. The lawyer went out
and his return he WAS shown the $l2.500 In
cash. Several other witnesses were examined
without elciting anything new and recess
until evening was taken.
The evening session was devoted to the read
ing of routine documentary evidence.
A rumor was circulated to-day that IL was the
intention Of thu district attorney to allow Nc.