New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-02-13
A THIRD SCHEME OF FRA I'D
TAMMANY VERSATILITY AT ELECTION
CRIMES SHOWN.
TRIAL OF DENNIS j. BUCKLEY. ONE OF JUSTICE
DIVERS LIEUTENANTs. IN THE COURT


OF OYER AND TERMINER.
Tammanys versatility in election fraud is be-
ing strikingly exemplifed in the cases now on
trial before Judge Barrett in the Court Of Oyer
and Terminer. The third Of these begun
yesterday. and IT revealed method Of crime
entirely different from those practised in the two
previous cases. The many trials still to come
will doubtless develop many other novelties In
schemes for a dishonest ballot and an unfair
count.
The present defendant Is Dennis ]. Buckley.
one of Police Justice DIVERS lieutenants in the
lid Assembly District. He was one Of the board
of inspectors of the Eighteenth Election Dis
trct of the lid Assembly District, his associates
being Joseph F. Anderson, Republican. and
Fargal j. Gallagher. Democrat. All three were
indicted. Assistant District-Attorney Wellman
had expected to try Gallagher first, but an
nounced to Judge Barrett that the witnesses for
the people in this case had suffered remark
able lapse OF memory since they told their stories
to him three weeks ago. Now he was unable to
get them to recollect any Of their testimony.
Therefore he first called that OF Buckley.
THE DEFENCE ovERRULED.
William F. Howe objected to this change Of
plan. Mr.. Howe, with Edward F. Walsh has
been retained to defend Buckley. Doubtless
Tammany leaders were beginning to be alarmed
tained by Mr. Wellman of guilty election in
spectors. 1t was necessary 70 make strong
fight for Buckley. District-Attorney Fellows had
assigned George Gordon Battle. one OF his as
sistants. to aid Mr.. Wellman.
Judge Barrett decided that as all the cases
were on the calendar, the prosecuting attorney
could chose any one he pleased, so the trial of
Pucxley was begun. Most Of the day was spent
in getting the jury, which consists of the fol-
lowing: Jacob Ash, clerk. No. 100 Lexington-ave.;
Vaudeville Odell carpenter, No 231 East One
Observation-Disclosures. Ralph r. Geist, mems
furnishing goods. No 220 East One-hundred- and
twenty-fourth-st; William Walker. No.
Madison-ave.; Charles e. Bemis. calico ic,,
printer No 102 West Seventy y-nfth-st.; Eli
samuels Clothing. No. ia West Eighty seventh
ST. Michael Duggan. salesman. No 207 East
Fifteenth-st. Alfred r. Fourtain. No. SO West
One -hundred-an ni-twenty-eighth-st.; Samuel H.
Chubb machinist. No. 40 West One-hundred-
nd-twenty-fourth-st: James G. Winship. me-
chanical engineer, No. 334 West One-hundred-
and-forty- y-ffth-st. Cornelius f. Anderson. cash
Ter. No so West ed-and-twenty-
fourth-st.. and William A. Stewart, manager,
No. 1890 Washington-ave
THE CASE AGAINST BUCKLEY.
Mr.. weman's opening address brief. He
said that Buckley had allowed the casting Of
an Illegal vote by a man unknown to the prose-
cutIon. Some one had voted In the name Of
John Reilly In the morning, and when Reilly
came to the polling place in the afternoon. he
had to swear In his vote Buckley knew Reilly;
in fact lived in the same house with him, and
therefore must have connived at the Illegal vote
His plan was to have the surplus Of votes drawn
out in such a way as to wipe out entirely the
Republican vote
Reilly testified first He said he lived at No.
81 Chery-st last year. but found the place un-
pleasant after having testified against Buckley
before the Grand Jury. His neighbors cast
many slurs on him that he thought 1t better to
move and went to No. 400 Madison-st. He had
lived in the former house nearly a year. Buck
ley also lived there. He had known Buckley for
seven or eight years. His mother had known
the defendants parents in Ireland. The wit
ness saw Buckley almost every evening while
they lived in the same house.
On election day. Reilly voted at about 23o
o'clock AS soon as the ballot clerk called out
his name, Buckley said: Somebody has voted In
Reilly's name" The witness did not see him
look into his registry book before making this
announcement Reilly then swore In his vote
"Was Buckley in the place when you regis
tered?" Judge Barrett asked.
He was"
Did he recognize you when you registered?"
the Judge further asked.
Yes, SIR
when you voted. did he recognize your"
''Well. not exactly"
1t also came out that some one had been sent
into the booth with him. although he was
neither blind nor disabled. Reilly caused some
merriment by saying that he had intended to
vote the Democratic ticket, but on finding that
some one had been allowed to vote In his name,
he put in a Republican ballot.
Mr. Howe's cross-examination related chiefly
TO whether Buckley had looked into his book
before announcing that some one had voted In
Reilly's name The witness wobbled little on
this point. The trial will go on to-day.
Peter Neville. who was convicted last Wednes-
day. will be sentenced tomorrow.