The New York Herald Newspaper, January 23, 1873, Page 4

THE COURTS. TWELFTH DAY OF THE TWEED TRIAL. Andrew Garvey Further Riddled by Counsel--- Te Swears to Have Fled the City Through Fear of Assassination---That Check for $60,000---His Brother John on the Stand---A Fearful Memory--- * How He Made Ten Dol- lars and Spent One. INTEREST ON CITY DEPOSITS. The Foley-Palmer Injunction Modifled— Salaries of the Chamberlain’s Employes To Bo Paid Out of the Interest on City. Deposits as Heretofore— A Demurrer To Be Inter- posed to the Injunction, The Constitutionality of the New Jury Law. The Case of Barclay, the Burglar, on Ap- peal at General Term—Pointsin Error Raised by Counsel—Argument by the District Attorney in Op- position—Decision Reserved, THE OLD OCEAN BANK ROBBERY. A Suit to Recover $50,000 from the Ocean Bank, Part Proceeds of the Plunder—The Bank of Lyons, Yowa, the Plaintiff—The Case Still On THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Relationship of Bowen to Madame Jumel Denied by Witnesses—The Plaintiff in Saratoga—He Sees Madame Jumel There, but Claims No Relation- ship—How Lawyers Were to Pay the Oost of Plain- tiff’s Suit—Another Tilt Between Counsel. BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS. Summaries—Suit Against the Second Avenue’ Railroad Company to Recover $20,000 and Sudden Collapse—Important Cases Before the General Term—Failure to De- liver Goods According to Sample— Convictions and Sentences. The temporary injunction granted several days since by Judge Barrett, of the Supreme Court, on application of Mr. John Foley, against the City Cham- berlain, in regard to the interest on the city deposits, came up for argument bejore the same Judge on an order to show cause why the same should not be made permanent, After a lively argument it was Onally agreed to modify the injunction so as to allow the clerks and employés in the Chamberlain's oflice to be paid their saiaries as heretofore by the banks used as city depositories, from the interest on city deposits. Otherwise the injunction con- tinues in force until the final hearing of the argu- ment on the merits. A case was argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, General Term, involving the point as to the constitutionality of the new Jury law. The case argued was upon a writ of error, through which it is sought to get a new trial for William J. Barclay, who is serving aterm in State Prison upon con- viction of robbery, but the point in question deeply concerns many other offenders against our criminal laws, including Edward S. Stokes among the number. Areport of the arguments pro and con will be found elsewhere. A trial was commenced yesterdag In the Court of Common Pleas, before Judge J. F, Daly, growing out of the old Ocean Bank robbery. Among the proceeds of the robbery were $50,000 in United States five-twenties belonging to a bank in Iowa, The suit is to compel the Ocean Bank to make good the loss, It is not yet concluded, For three days a suit has been progressing in the Court of Common Pleas, in which a father sought to recover $10,000 on account of injuries sustained by his child through being run over by a Second Av- enue Railroad car. The prosecution yesterday sud. denly collapsed and withdrew a juror, thus aban, doning the suit. Five cases were argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, General Term, upon appeals from convictions, inthe Court of General Sessions, and new trials asked in each case, One application was granted and in the others the decisions were re- served, The twelfth day of the Tweed trial (yesterday) ‘was replete with sensation matter from the Garvey brothers, Andrew and John; the former being in- ned to testify to too many things, and the latter, “on the contrary, quite the reverse,” having great diMculty in rousing up facts from his memory. These were the only witnesses examined, and thefr testimony was chiefly in elaboration of points already brought out, John H. Keyser will be called to the stand this morning. The hearing of the case of George W. Bowen vs, Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circuit Court before Judge Shipman and the special jury. A considerable amount of evidence was given by witnesses called on the part of the defendantto show that on several occasions at Providence the plaintiff, Bowen, declared that Madame Jumel was in no way related to him. The rial will be resumed to-day, _ THE TWEED TRIAL The Two Garveys Keeping: a _Wit- nes: Stand All to Themselves— “Andy's” Fears of What “Wally” Roche Hinted At—John Garvey’s Quiet Talks and-Unreliable Memory. The proceedings in the Tweed trial—adjourned on Tuesday afternoon until yesterday in conse- quence of the tndisposition of Mr, Tremain—were duly resumed in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, before Judge Noah Davis, yesterday morning, The crowd in attendance was quite larye, and a num. ber of police were detalieg and posted to presetve order at the entrance to the courtroom, Mr, Tre- main and Mr, Peckham, for the prosecution, were in their place, prompt on time, as were also Messrs, Field, Fullerton, Burrill and other gentlemen en- gaged in the defence. Judge Davis was smiling, and everybody seemed better for the day of re- | faxation that had intervened since the Court had last assembled. y The defendant, Mr, Willlam M, Tweed, at the club house at Indian Harbor, Gourt aceempanicd by lis sons, William M. Tiveed, sto.the office of Mr. looked about as casy as he once did when the reporter saw him sticking @ @ largo spoon Inio @ plum pudding Tle came into Jr., and Richard M., familiarly known as “young Dick.” Mr, Tweed, pcre, wears an immense over- coat—it must be immense if he couldn’f wear it at ail—of blue cloth, reaching almost to his heels, and itis very interesting to note trow the crowd in the vestibules of the Court maké way for him as he passes in or out, A large proportion of the audi- ence are evidently men who have, at times not .long gone, been in the public service under the Tammany régime, and a still larger proportion were voters and workers for that organization in its palmy days. They have evi- dently not lost all hope of the ‘Boss’ yet; for, though as a rule, they velong to the of pollo of polities, they deferentially ‘make room” {or thelr ideal Cxsar ina manner that is a proof of their sympathy with him, And they look at him, too, very sadly as he passes out through the lane they open for him in their ranks; but it is not the vulgar stare of curiosity that they would hustle into the face of a murderer or other ordinary criminal, It is a quiet, sincere look, that tells that they feel sorry for the ehlef, now that he isin the hands of the enemy, and that some of those whom be trusted have “gone back on him,” And then there is another expression just behind their sympathy, which shows that he is still, though fallen, the idol of the boys who once rallied to his standard, and who would not only rally to it again, but would help once more to raise and unfurl it. Every day the same deference is shown him by this crowd as he passes among them, and as he leaves the crowd at the close of each afternoon's proccedMgs they follow to the doors and look wistfully up the street after him, and turn back with rough but earnest eulogiums of the mun whose domination they felt and sigh to feel again. THR PROCEEDINGS YESTERDAY—GARVEY AGAIN ON THE STAND. As soon as the Court was opened Andrew J. Garvey was placed on the stand, The cross-examination of this witness having been concluded, the prosecution again took him in hand, and Mr. Peckham proceeded to prove by him that all the warrants produced on the trial bearing the signature of the defendant, and which the witness pronounced 98 drawn for fraudulent umounts, were deposited in the Broadway Bank, Alter having done that, Mr. Peckham asked the witness to detail THE REASONS FOR HIS LEAVING THE CITY, whether of his own volition or otherwise. Fullerton objected, Mr. Peckham said that vhey proposed to show that Garvey’s departure from the city was at the instance of Tweed, and they were going to connect the detendant with it in due time. He said that defence proposed to show that Garvey fled the city on his own account and trom his own conscience, The prosecution, on the contrary, could plainly demonstrate that Garvey was driven from the city, advised to do so and compelied to do so. ‘The question of the regularity oi asking the ques- tion put to the witness was discussed by Messrs. Tremain and Peckham, for the prosecution, and Burrill and Fullerton, respectively, for the defence. ‘The question was allowed by the Court, Witness—On Friday, or Saturday the 16th, I went Tweed and tried to see him; King came out and he said to me—— Mr. Fitth avenue house? A. Yes, sir; Iwent there to coligct the bill tor the work, and there was an item for work done at Greeawich; Mr. Tweed said he had paid o° all the work done at Greenwich and objected to this item in the bill, and I said it should be stricken out; he said-he paid for every- thing done at Greenwich, and produced a check and said, ‘“Lhere's a check I paid your brother for $u0,000,"" He held the check in his hand, Q. Did you ask to see the check or take it? A. I thnk I reached my hand to get it, but ne put it back In his wallet. Q. Are you the person who transacted the settle- ment with regard to the bill against Comptroller Connolly? A, Lam; 1 made the final settlement witty his son-in-law, Joe! Fithian; Il received in casa and receivted bills, recelpted by \irs, Connolly, be- tween filteen and gixte n thousand doilars, and return cheeks @f ‘my brother for $37,000; these checks (produced) are the four I received in re- turn; a $2,0.0 check said by them to be destroyed was allowed also, making the return checks amount to $39,000, instead of $37,000, and ten cent was stricken off the whole amount; the balance was an understanding with Comptroller Connolly of some $70,000, paid to my vrother through Mr, Watson, Q. You remember the time of Mayor Hall’s frst trial? A. Ido. COUNSEL PRODUCED FOUR LETTERS, wr.tten on small note paper, Wich witness fdenti- fied as being in the handwriting of Wiliam M, Tweed, addressed to witness and received by him, The envelopes were also identified, Mr, Peckham then read the letters, the first one being as follows:— New Yorx, Jan, 10, 1372, Jonn Garvey, Esq. me at 85 Duane street. Yours, dc. WILLIAM M. TWEED. The next letter was dated “Sunday,” and was written in pencil. The mark on the envelope showed it to have been received February 20. It Was as follows :— Joun Ganver, a Dxax Sin—I waited for you last night, but you did not come. Come and see mi at5il Filth Avenue to-morrow morning. I wiildetain you ut a moment, and have nothing unpleasant to say. Yours, &c., WILLIAM M. TWEED, The third was almost similar in terms and brevity, and the last was as follows:— Jonn Garvey :— Dear SiR—L don't know why you do not keep your en- gagements to callonme Tam sure there will be nothing unpleasant done io you. It you «@u come to my house betore two to-day please dogo, Yours, W. M. TWEED, Q. Did you see Mr. Tweed in reply to these notes? A. [think I did as to the one disected to Duane Street; 1 had one interview with him there; I don’t think 1 answered any of the other notes. Do you remember the interview in Duane street? A. Iremember it, but there was only one little part of it that had any relation to this case; he asked me when I heara from Andrew; I told hum I was in constant communication with him; that was all that related to this matter. Q. Why didn’t you go to see him when the other notes were sent to you? Objectell to by detence as immaterial and objection sustained by the Courts THR CRORS-EX AMINATION was then opened by Mr, D. D, Field as follows:— When my brother went away he conveyed mis property to his wife, Q. For the purpose of defrauding the city and county, was if not? (Objected to by the prosecu- tion.) A. No, sir; it was that 1 might reconvey it to his wife. Q. Did he owe it to his wife? A. I can’t answer that question, © Q, Did it belong toher? A. {t belonged to her as is wife. TEN DOLLARS MADR, Mr. Fullerton—Are you going to allow that con- versation, your Honor? Witness—Well, I saw Roche on the Monday even- ing following, at his own house; his wife opened the door aod showed me into the back parior; Roche came and closed the door very mysteriously, and said— é Mr. Fullerton again objected. Mr. Peckham said that it was by this means that he hoped to prove that the witness went away at the urging of Tweed, through his friends. The Court said that the prosecution would be allowed to prove that the witness left by ‘“‘ad- vice,” but any statement made by Roche was in- admissible. Garvey—I was told by Roche that I would come to grief if | didn’t go away, and I understood that threat was intended as A HINT AT ASSASSINATTON, Q. Mr. Garvey, do you knew anything about the relations between Mr. Tweed and Roche—whether they had any relations together in’ the Broadway Bank? A. I believe they had, sir. Mr. Fulierton—I object tg that, sit, as altogether too remote. 4 Do you remember whether there were two different sizes of blank bills in the Comptroller's oltice? A, Yes, sir; there were, Q. Half sheet anu full sheet, I believe? A, Yes, ir. . You did not generally compare the amount of the warrant with the amount ol the bill rendered? A. No, sir. Q.. You were 3 eakihg of a conversation you had with Mayor Hall, State what that conversation was. A. I cannot recollect now, sir; some of it re- lated to my claims, which I said were just; I don’t think anybody asked me about them, Q. You were examined as to a suit you had against the county, Was that suit brought by you volunta- rily? A. No, sir. Q. At whose request and instance was that suit brought? A. At the request of Mayor Hall; he was served at his own request; the suit was not bona Jide; the suit was dropped; there was no an- swer filed, Q. You said, Mr. Garvey, that the first bill for the Court House was sworn to by you. Was that bill a ust and true one? A. It was an honest bi Q. Vilskow you this bill, marked “Exhibit N.? Tl ask you whether that bill Was made out by you? Mr. Fullerton—That was all gone over on the cross-examination, The Court allowed the queséion. Witness—I made out that bill at my own house on Forty-seventh street. Q At that time did you make out any other paper corresponding to that A. Yes, sir. Mr. Peckham showed the witness a similar paper to Exhibit N, aud asked if that was the document alluded to as being made out at the same time? A. Yes, sir. “Through, Mr. Peckham?” inquired the witness, Mr. Peckbam—Yes, Witness—I want to make a slight correction. Mr, Fullerton—Wait a moment; hold on, A LITTLE WRANGLING, A little wrangling here was indulged in between counsel as to the production of a check for $60,000, A transcript of the ledger of the East River Bank was produced and carefully examined by counsel, shewing the date of the last check for $60,000, Witness—I wish to make that slight correction now; onrefiection I think my brother did engage a room for me at Hobokem before the steamer sailed; I said before that I did not think he did, bat Lam under a contrary impression now. To Mr. Fullerton—I made out that rough bill there to approximate what I thought the work to be performed would be; I made out the similar one aiterwards, but at the same sitting; the bills might have been made’ off the same sheet; I put the smaller bill away in a drawer after it was made out; WHEN I WENT TO EUROPE I gave it to my brother. Q. How did you reduce the amount of the bill from $69,000 to $60,000? A, By some principle of calculation; by altering the charges from a memo- randum; some of the items reduced and some I increased to make the bill the desired amount, $00,484. Q. Why didn’t you make the bill $60,000 even— can you tellus’ A. Weill, I thought it didn’t look business like. (Laughter.) When y bad the bill been rendered ? Witness—I was about—— Counsel—One moment; had the bill been ren: s—I tell you I was— Couns One moment more, sit; had the bill been rendered then ? —Well, 1 was about to say—. (Laugh. ) Counsel (in stentorian tones)—Had the bill been rendered then, sir ? Answer. Witness—Well, I don’t think tt nad; no, sir. Counsel—Well! (Increased laugtiter.) Q. Did you not make out that bill from recoliec- tion? A; No, sir. Q. Did you not make the amount come upto $60,484 from recollection ? Witness—Do you mean the items ? Counsel—Yes. . Witness (laughing)—No, I'll (Laughiter.) Q. Now, Mr. Garvey, at the time you rendered that bill did | understand you to say that Mr. Tweed touk something out of his desk and handed it to you?’ A, (indignantly)—No sir, no! (Great laughter.) Q. Did you say that ke did not put it in your hands? A. No, sir; be laid 1t on the table. Face up or down? A, Face down. Q. Vo Lunderstand you to say that you did not get the money on that check; that you left it with Mr. Tweed and that your endorsement was upon it in your ordinary bandwriting? A. Yes, sir. Some ubimportant questions were put to the witness further on account of the check, after which the Court took the usual recess for half an hour, swear I didn't. After Recess, The afternoon session, beside being brief, was very quiet and decoro n fact there Was a good deal ofthe “happy family" feeling. Mr, Tweed looked cheery and found trequent opportunities for smiles, which seemed to indicate an easy conscience as to the developments already made, and the ammunt- tion which the defence has to use as soon as they open their magazine, Andrew J. Garvey was in and out of the court room half a dozen times dur- ing the afternoon, aud was called to the witness stand once to answer @ quesiion, Again, a short time afterward, his name was called by Mr. Peck- ham, but he was not to be sound, As he passed in and out of the court room he was watched con- Unually by the audience, and it is not necessary to remain more than five minutes in any part of the Auditorium of the Court to learn that he is not the Ihost popular man in the room, Courtand counsel were prompt ia assembling, And the proceedings were Fesumed by TAK DIRECT EXAMINATION of fon Garvey, The witness testilied as follows in answer to M hami— Q. Mr. Garvey, ao you remember having @ con- Vergation in Ap}! Of 1871 with Mr. Tweed in Tolerence (0 a bill for gome fiteen thousand dollars 1 put on the original endorsement | Q. Now tell the jury for what purpose that con- veyance was made to you? A. (After’a pause.) [ got $10 for it. (Laughter.) Q. And’ you are not able to tell the jury that there was any other purpose in it but that you would get $10 for it? A. That is all, sir, . Did you know that your mother owed the cit; and county of New York hundreds of thousands of (od A. I had only the newspaper reports dor it. Q. Did you believe them? A. I don’t believe all Tread in newspapers; I believe nothing only what I know to be a fact. Q. When your brother was away did you enter into negotiations with anybody in behalf of your brother to get him back on any condition what- ever? A. I had an interview with Mr. O’Conor only, and but one with him; I am not positive, but Hs I indicated the result of that to my brother yy letter, Q. Was it in consequence of that that he re- turned? A. No, sir, ft Was not. X SHOCKING MEMORY. Q. How many letters did you write to your brother? A. 1 can’t tell; sometimes I wrote four @ week. Q. wor write fifty letters to him in all? A, TI can't tell. Q. Did you write on an average four @ week? A, Ican’t tell. : . About how many letters? A. can’t tell, . Well, was tt ten or fiity. You can tell that, surely? A, Lcan’t tell. Q. Where are the letters? A, I don’t know. I kept no copies. # Q. Do you mean to tell the jury that you never had a conversation respecting your brother with anybody except Mr. O'Conory A, Ido, Q. Didn’t you have interviews with Mr. Peckham in reference to this suit? A. Not before, my brother’s return, I have had frequentcommunica- tions with officers for the State since, Q. When did you last see them? A. I walked up Sixth avenue with Mr. Peckham last night; I don’t remember our talking about hae} in connec- tion with this suit except that. I asked him if he had those letters of Mr. Tweed to me, Q. Do you remember a suit for specific perform- ance of a contract in which one Myers was a party? A. (after a pause) A suit for land; Ido, ‘A GREAT LAWYER'S MIND, Q. Do you remember @ Mr. Harnett, who was a witness? (Objected to by prosecution.) In the course of a brief discussion as to the rele- vancy of these questions, The Court said—Well, they may lead to some- thing. I suppese the counsel has something in his mind, (Laughter.) Mr. Field (laughing)—Well, IT was thinking I had, Iam glad to think my mind is not exactly a vacuum, (Laughter.) Mr. Tremain—Oh, well, as. that is the case, you can goon, (Laughter again, and more ef it.) Some further questiops were putin reference to the suit alluded to, but nothing apparently impor- tant was elicited. “JOHN AT SARATOGA.” Witness—I was a witness at Saratcga on the im- peachment trial of Judge Barnard, Q. Did you testify on that occasion that you never wrote to your brother while hy was abroad in regard to a negotiation with the c'ty authorities about the claims against him? A, (hesitating) I thfk I did, Q. Did you when asked that queition make a distinction between the city afd thestate autnort- ties? A. I never considered Charlies ©’Conor as @ city authority. Let us come to the transaction of taking a ackage from this building to Mr.fweed at Al- any. Did you take such a package’ A. I did, Y. Did you see the contents of that package, A, I think—to the best of my knowleige I saw the contents; the package Was not seald; 1 think it ‘was open. Q. What did you see? A, (after arause) To the best of my knowlege 1 saw a pakage of bank notes. Q. When you reached Albany dit Mr, Beardley ride down im the same carriage With you from the depot to the Delavan House? A. Hi did, Q. Where was your interview witi Mr, Tweed, in Fall of 1871, held’ A. In the omic: of the Depart. tor Public Works; only Mr. 4 e present; 1 think it Was in Nowmber; it was ious to the elect) THAT SHOCKING MEMORY MAIN. Q. Who began the conversation’ A, I think it was Mr. Tw Q. What did Ke say? A. Tcan’t tll you that. q. Can you give a single word thé be suidy A, I have given that conversation as uear as 1 could recollect its substance, We don’t want the substancean you remem- ber one word? A. Oh, yes, Q. Give it? A. (after a pause) know he men- tioned the name "Woodward.”’ q. Any other word? A, I remenber distinctiy him saying it was better for Andrw to be away, (Laugliter.) Q. Did he use the word ‘better!’ bstance. Q. [don’t ask for the substance ¢ what he said. Do you re! y other word? A, Lremember him saying and ‘“Jimmy'— (impatiently) Lcan't swear point blank to any mn’s phrases, Q. Bo you remember any word tht you used? A, A. That was Ido, Lasked him if he feared Woo ward, Q. Did ‘d the word “feardy’ A, Well— either fe ‘are you afraid of Voodward? Q. Will you swear to any other wrd? BRINGING THE MEMORY TCTIME, A long pause ensued, during which the wit- ness appeared to be beating the “bng roll” on his forehead with his fingers to assemie his recollec- tious, Mr. Tweed appeared to b thoroughly in- terested in the evidence of the wiiess or at once more hearmg what he had said himell, and leaned forward on the table, with a most mused smile on his face and a sparkle Im his eye, Mr. Field to witness —Will you aswer my ques- tion? A. Yes, sir, 1 am trying t think (alter a briefer pause) | 1 think I said [ wihed it was all settled and Andrew was back ; I thik I said that; I could not give the exact words of nything else, » Q Did you bring & suit against Ir. Tweed while your brother was away? 0 81) here was no suit brought; Gilbert & Smecey made a de mand, but L was not aware thi any suit was brought; they were my brother’ lawyers, and I merely instructed them to collect that claim (suit was commenced against Mr. Twee, as it appeared from remarks among counsel, ondarch 20, 1872) 5 Thave not had any conversation vith Mr, Tweed since that time Q. Was this question put to yoron the trial.at Saratoga, referring to your broth’, “Did he make any conveyance of property abouthat time to his wile, to your knawiedge ? A, Lilnk it was, Q, And did you answer, “Not tony knowledge ? A, 1 don’t recollect making such § answer as that, Q. Was this question put, “Notthat you heard of?” and did yon answer, “Not tat I heard of? A, I think they were put, and,is [ understood them at that time, the question ws whether I then and there knew, Q@ And was this question pu “Have you haa any communication With your bythery and did you answer, “No, sir? A, Langered that way, A number of other questions €@ put referring or tently thousand doilats Jor work done 0m hw to the Witness’s answers at Sratoga to certain Deax Sin—When down town please drop in and seo | questions, and the witness acknowledged making the replies read by Mr. Field from the printed rec- ord of that trial, Q. How long before your brother went away was this conveyance made? A. 1 think it was about the time o1 his wiie’a birthday—about the 12ch of September—and he went away on the 2ist of Sep- tember, CHEAP AT THE PRICE. Q, At the time oi the conveyance ro his wife did you receive a Conveyance of $120,000 in mortgages from him? A, Idi day or two aiterwards, Q. Did you give any consideration for that? A. 1 forget whether it was a dollar a piece I gave hum or a dollar tor the whole of them, Q. Did you alterwards make oath that you paid full value for those mortgages? A. Well, he soouinered that was iuil value tor them. (Liaugh- Q. I am asking you what you swore to. Did wa Make such a declaration? A. (hesitating) ell, 1 sold them to pay his debts, Redirect by Mr, Tremain—Mr. Garvey, on the trial at Barasona. you were asked this question, “Did “he (your brother) make any conveyance of property to his wife dbont that time?” “Did you answer, ‘No, sir?” A. I did answer like that. . Mr. Tremain (reading from the report of the Barnard trial)—You say your prother conveyed property to you, and that you immediately aiter- waras conveyed it to his wife; is thatso? That question was pul to you. A, Yea. Q And you answered that you had so conveyed ity A. 1 did, sir, A number of other questions and answers from the report of the Barnard trial were read by Mr. Tremain, showing that the witness had told the whole et of the conveyances on that occasion substantially as he told it on this trial. AN AWFULLY WICKED WISH. By Mr. Peckham. You were questioned in refer- ence to a conversation with Mr. Tweed, in which you say you asked him, “If he was afraid ot Wood- ward?” What did Mr. Tweed answer to that question? (Ubjected to.) A. To the best of my belief Mr. Tweed said, “Yes; I wish he was dead,” Meee gad in which the ‘Boss’ himself took a and, " By Mr. Fiel€—Q. You say you went to Mr. O’Conor as a private citizen? A. I didn’t go to him in any other way; I was: not his client. . State what conversation you had with him, Objected to, Objection sustainea, and the deience excepted to the ruling. JOHN H. KRYSER was then called a8 a witness, but failed to make his appearance, He was in the court room a lew minutes belore, and messengers were despatched in quest of him, . Andrew J. Garvey was recalled by the prosecu- tion to fill up time. Q. By Mr, Peckham—Mr. Garvey, in your Broad- way bank book, under date of December 30, 1870, there is an entry recording a deposit of $119,454 50, Can you state of what items that sum was com- posed, A. There was $106,000, a check of Jay Cooke's for bonds I had sold and I lent the money out on mortgages; the other items were smail amounts, It was now five minutes of three o’clock and the Court waited for Mr, peracr until nearly twenty minutes past three, As he bag) not up to that time been brought into Court, adjournment was ordered until this morning Mr. Keyser is the last remaining prominent wit- ness to be examined for the prosecution. Some cierks of banks will succeed him to identify and verlly certain papers, and the prosecution will, it is understood, rest upon the evidence then in, THE JUMEL ESTATE CASE. The Suit of George W. Bowen vs. Nelson Chase—Further Evidence for the De-= tendant—Testimony that Bowen is in No Way Related to Madame Jumel— How Lawyers Were to Pay the Costs of the Suit for the Plaintiff. The hearing of the case of George W. Bowen vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yesterday in the United States Circuit Court, before Judge Shipman and the special jury. Mr. Hoar, Mr. Chatfield, Mr. Shaffer and Mr. Sawyer appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Charles O'Conor and Mr. J. C. Carter for the defendant, Mr. Hoar said that the testimony given by the defendant as to there having been other Betsy Bowens in Providence was a novelty to the plaintiff, who desired’ to take evidence on that subject of some witnesses in Providence as soon as possible. That, he said, was a matter of complete and entire explanation, and he supposed the other side would take notice of the intimation now given. Mr. O’Lonor said that if written notice were given of the intended examination it would enabie bim to state what he felt on that matter. Mr. Hoar stated that they would prefer fixing a day for the examination when it would not inter- fere with the arrangements of counsel on either side, Mr. O’Conor—Unless required, we do not think it discreet to say anything on this subject at this mo- ment. OLD RECORDS FROM PROVIDENCE. Mr. Brown, Clerk of the Town Council of Provi- dence, produced some of the books containing records of the public alfairs of that town from 1794 to 1800, Mr. Carter offered in evidence an entry from book six, page 334, of these records. It was fhe ex- amination of Reuben Ballou before the Town Counciy of Providence on the 6th of April, 1794, in which Ballou stated that he had a wife and two children— William, aged eight years, and a girl named Dinah, six years old—and that he never had any real estate but in the town of Cumberland. The Town Council ordered that said Ballou should be removed to Cumberland on the 6th of May following, and they made a further order that his removal should be delayed till the 9th of May, be- cause.he was ill and not a fit subject for removal. Counsel also gave in evidence an entry from book 7, page 520, under date of 14th of September, 1800, recording the death of Mrs. Hull, mother of Danie! Huu. Inthe same book there is an entry at page 207, under date of November 6, 1797, ordering that letters of administration be granted to Phebe Hal, widow of Gideon Hull, she being bound under bond of £2,000 to exhibit an inventory according to law. Other entries from the same books were given in evidence. Mr. Brown stated, in aeply to counse?, that in the Champlain Bowen case he had brought all these books inte Court, except one; he had also brought them here on the previous trial of thiy suit, and also on the present occasion. Mr, Carter read from the records ot the town of Cumberland, under date of May 30, 1794, an entry to the effect that Reuben, Ballou wag likely to be- come chargeable to the town; it was ordered by the Town Council that Ballou, with his wile, Free- love, and his two children, Whitiam ana Lavina, be sent back to Providence as their proper and legal place of settlement. All this evidence was offered for the purpose of contradicting the statement of the plaintiff that he is the son of Major Reuben Ballou by Betsy Bowen, and also the evidence of Daniel Hull, one of the witnesses for the plaintim. TESTIMONY OF MR. MIC! Ww. D Ee Mr. Michael W. Devine sworn—I reside in New Jersey; 1am alawyer; I am. one of the firm of Martin & Smith, of this city; in the course of m business I had occasion to make inquiries in Provi- dence about the affairs of Madame Jumel; these inquiries commenced in February, 1866; my first visit to Providence was on the 2ist of February, 1866; I remained there until about the 4th or Maroh; I went down there to ascertain if 1 could discover any nearer relatives by blood to Madame Jumel than those who were contesting her will; I made a search in the office of the Town Council of Providence; I found records in the Town Council books in rejerence to more than one Betsy Bowen; in searching those records | found an examination of Phabe Bowen about her children, Polly and Betsy Bowen ; | also ound an examination of Phoebe Bowen under the name of Phabe Kelly; I believe 1am the first person who discovered the records; L had an interview with G. W. Bowen on my first visit to Providence ; I asked him if he would tell me the names of his father and mother; he hesitated; I told him, in substance, a lady in New York, Mad- ame Jumel, had died, leaving a large amount of property to charitable purposes and to the Church, and that ladies in New York, claiming to be her nieces, were, with a lawyer, contesting the will on the ground that Madame Jumel was not competent at the time to make a wilk; I told him that we had information that the true heirs lived in Providence; I asked him if he was in any way re- lated, directly or indirectly, to Madame Jumel; he said be was not; he said he did not know her, but had heard of her name through the papers; he said that he bad seen her a few times at Saratoga, but that there was no relation- ship between them that he had any idea of; he went on to say that his mother died when he was oung; that his father died when he was an in- ianty he said that the people Who sent me to him were mistaken, that he was in no way related to Mme. Jumel; then lasked him if he would have any objection to tellme the name of his mother; he said he had no recoilection of his mother; hi was, he said, too young to have "ny recollection of her, and he would prefer not to teli her name; I then asked him if he knew one Betsy Bowen; he said, “No;’’ I then asked him if he had ever heard of any web d Bowen, or of any Betsy Bowen in con- nection with himself; he said he might have reco!- lected a woman of that name when he was a child who was living with @ Miss Bates, but he hada very indistinct recollection of her, and said be was not in any way related to her. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Chat- field, and said that while he was in Providence he had been speaking to two persons about the heirs of Madame Jumel, and got from them the idea that G. W. Bowen ap possibly know something about those heirs, as they believed that Bowen's father was one Uriah Bowen, A considerable portion of the cross-examination was taken up with questions as to how many witnesses the witness had exam- ined on deposition in the progress of the will suit. He said he did not recoliect Mr. Chase saying in his deposition that Madame Jumel bad an illegitimate NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 1873.-TRIPLE SHEET. child ; did not recollect that Mr, Chase said his wife was the illegitimate child of Madame Jumel, . Will ad say that he did not say tiat? A. t at this time, sir, it was so long ago; my impression 1s that the Joneses suid the impression in the family was that Madame Jumel was the elder of tte two sisters; 1 do not know what has become oi those depositions; my impres- Sion 18 that | told Mr. Carter I did not know, what had become oi our copy of the depositions; the suit about Jumel’s will was, I think, tried in November, 1866; either undue influence’ or fraud Was set up in the complaint agaigest the will by the Rev. John Howard Smith, who was one of the lega- tees tn the will; Ido not know wheie Mr. Smith is now; Ido not know what amount of money was paid to the Rey. Mr, Smith on the settlement ot the Will; Ido net know what amount of money was paid to Martin & Smith on that setiuement; on the other trial of this suit I do not recoilect saying that if we (c el for plaintiff) wanted copies of those depositions you could have them; I think I made @ statement to that effect in ‘reference to the depositions, or copies of them, taken in Provi- radio d Me 8 perk {0 Providence four or five es ‘eference U8i DSS ; the City Hotel, andl have no reesiecnee epee ping at any other hotel in that city. pose of testing the recollection of the ess he was asked a number of questions as to how long he had remained in Providence on the occasion of each of his visits. On my first (said the witness) visit I saw Mr. Dike, @ client of ours; he intio- duced me to Mr. Doyle, the Mayor, and the Mayor introduced me to Mr, Billings, an elderly genie. man; I think, but am not certain, that it w; during my first visit to Previdence that I examined the records o! the Town Council; this examination extended to more than one visit; before I saw G, W. Bowen I think I had found upon the books entries relating to several Betsey Bowens; I had received an anonymous letter. from Mr Crawford Allen, cteting hat Madame Jumei’s maiden name was Betsy Bowen; on the 26th of February, 1886, I first visited G. W. Bowen; I cannot tell ‘the name of the street he lived in; he, lived in a frame house; 1 saw him in @ room on the main floor;*it was cer- tainly a two story house; I cannot state what time of dayfwent there; it was broad daylight; I should think 1t was between noon and three or four o'clock; Iwas shown into @.room, and I think Mr. Bowen came in in a few minutes alter; I think we were alone. Can you give me the precise language of your first remark tohim? A. Ne; but in substance I told him, at first, 1 came on to make inquiries, and 1 Apeae him to tell me the names of his parents; I said to him on that interview thatI came on irom Martin & Smith, of New York, Q. Did you tellhim on the first interview that it made no matter whether he was illegitimate or not, that he could inherit? A, Isaid to him that if he could prove that he was in any way related to Madame Jumel nearer in blood than those who were ciaiming to be her heirs im New York the executors and the parties under the will would be disposed to make a liberal arrangement with him; I made that statement to him in accordance with a letter I had received from Mr. Augustus F, Smith, from New York; it was greatly to my desire to establish the fact that he was illegitimate; I think I said to him that I had received a letter from Mar- tin & Smith, of New York, requesting me to call on him again, that I was sorry for troubling him, but that I was requested to ask him this question, Whether he was, or believed himself, or ever hear that he was, the illegitimate son of Mme, Jumel ? I told him that under the law of the State of New York illegitimate children, in default of lawful issue, could inherit; he said he was in no way re- lated to Mme. Jumel; Mr, Bowen said that he had seen the name of Mme. Jumel in the newspapers, and that in the Summer he was in the habit of pine se Saratoga and had seen her there, and that if he had had any idea that he wasin any way re- lated to her he would have made himself known to her; 1 have not spoken to him since I have seen him here at this and at the former trial. Re-direct—When 1 vold Mr. Bowen that if he could prove he was in any wayrelated to Mme. Jumel @ liberal arrangement would be made with him, his answer was that the people who sent me to him were entirely mistaken—that he was in no way related to Mme. Jumel. TESTIMONY OF MR. CHARLES HART. Charles Hart, an attorney at law, residing in Providence, deposed :—I have é ‘actived there for twenty-eight years; 1 know George W. Bowen; I was employed by Mr. Chase in 1865, before the de- sition of Daniel Hull was taken; I had, in 1870, wo interviews with Mr. Bowen; he came to my office with @ letter which I had written to him about a bill of costs against kim which Judge Ed- monds, of New York, had sent to me to collect; Bowen replied that these costs were to be paid’ lawyers in New York; that Judge Edmends was to tie | them; I told him £ was glad to hear that, that he would not venture his money on @ suit of that character; he said he had no entry touching his parentage, but that there was a book in New York that had some entry about it, but that he did not know it would be of much sérvice, as he did not know in whose handwriting 1t was; he said he never spoke to Madame Jumel; I asked him when he first heard she might be his mother; he said “Not until aiter her death;” he said there was another suit to be brought; I told him there had been litigation in the name of him- selfand Mrs, Vandervoort; at this he seemed sur- prised; he said he was tired of this matter and wished. they would have an end of this matter; Mr. Gideon J, Tucker was in Providence when Joseph Perry was examined. Mr. O’Coner said it had been charged’ upon the defendant that he had palmed off the witness Perry upon the plaintiff, He wished to show to the Court thatan effort was made to carry this case by fraud, failseheed, perjury, subornation of witnesses and other crimes, He desired to prove by the witness that when Perry was examined ex parte, without notice to the defendant, Mr. Gideon J, Tucker went to that examination, and did examine Perry ex parte in Previdence, a place where Perry did not live; he lived everywhere, Tucker went down to Providence vo get him examined without netice to the defendant, There was nothing in the act of Congress to prevent the deiendant know- ing that the plaintiff was going to ex- amine that witness, yet they find Mr. Tucker in Providence ‘Sstealthily examining Perry, for when Mr. Hart met Mr. Tucker in the street, and asked him what he was deing tiere, he said he was there upon an entirely diferent vusi- ness, He did not think that the act of Congress would allow the chief manager and cortluctor of this case to do a thing like that—to repel his adver- sary from attending to the cross-examination of the witness, Mr. Gideon J. Tucker was then man- aging this case for his brother, Dr. Joseph C, Tucker, the only representative of the plainties interest, and he lived in California, He (Mr. O’Conor) offere the evidence of Mr. Hart to prove the nefarious course of proceeding that had been pursued for the urpose of carrying this great case by fraud, by per- Jase by gross and abominable assertion, by vitu- peration of the living and the dead. Mr. O'Coner, in the course of his remarks, aliujed to the arrangé- ment that the plaintiff had made with other parties to pay the expenses of conducting this suit. Mr. Chauncey Shaffer said he repudiated the assault that was made on Mr. Gideon T. Tucker, one of their best citizens, who was acting within the law of the State. They were treated as if they were criminals. Here was an old man, nearly olgnty years of age, seeking to gain his right in a suit Sane millions of dollars, and, not being able to do all the work himself, goes into the mar- ket to obtain the means of getting back his prop- erty from the ruthless grasp of unprincipled men. The question here was simply this, Should not any man in the pursuit of a lawful vocation be per- mitted to go about his business according to without having words and motives imputed to him as they had been? The plaintiff ciaimed that he was kept out of his inheritance by robbery, and he (counsel) maintained that it was improper to charge any man with crime for any act that he might do in pursuit of a lawful business. If it was lawful to raise money to build a railroad it was Jawtul to raise money to conduct @ suit at law. He defled any one to say that the conduct of Gideon J. Tucker was not clean, Mr. Tucker had sworn that the witness Perry was palmed off on him, and he had made efforts to have Perry pun- ished for bis false testimony, That man Perry was put upon the plaintiff. Mr. Shaffer, in conclusion, made remarks strongly censuring paid lawyers coming forward as witnesses, and said the Court would spit upon their evidence, After some further discussion the Court ruled out the offer of Mr. O’Conor to prove the declara- tions of Gideon J, Tucker to the witness, Hart, in Providence, Counsel for plaintiff entered a consent that the ex parte deposition of Perry should be read, The Court then adjourned till this morning, at eleven o'clock. THE FOLEY-PALMER INJUNCTION. Renewal of the Fight Upon a New Field of Battle—Heavy Siege Guns on Both Sides, but No Decisive R Real Merits of the C; rary Injumction Continued, but Modi- fled=Expenses and Salaries of the Chamberlain’s Office To Be Paid from the Interest on City Deposits. Fighting Foley, as he deserves assuredly to be called, having some time since placed in position his siege guns with a view to an assault upon the works of the City Chamberlain, opened yesterday, under the direction of General Dyott, a vigorous fire from his batteries. Some shots hit, but the most fell short, and the result was very little dam- age, The City Chamberlain returned the flre.from his heavy Edmonds and Lawrence guns, inflicting some damage in return on the assailant’s works, Dropping military metaphor and coming down to plain matter of fact, the Foley-Palmer injuno- tion case came up for argument yesterday, before Judge Barrett, at Supreme Court, Chambers. The nature and scope of this injunction has been too thoroughly ventilated in the papers to require further exvended elaboration. Its main features were an injunction—a temporary injunction, of course—enjoining the various depositories of vhe city and county funds from paying to the City Chamberlain any interest on such deposits, except upon checks or warrants countersigned by the Mayor and Comptroiler, and also restraining the Oity Chamberlain from directly or indirectly re- ceiving or disposing of any part of this interest, and irom paying any salaries to the subordinates ————— in his oMce. The case came up on an order te show cause why the injunction should not be made permanent. The same counsel appeared ag at the prior ee im the case, Mr. Anthony KR. Dyett representing Foley, Messrs. ex-Judge Edmonds and Abraham C, Lawrence appearing on behalf of the City Chamberlain, THE COMPLAINT IN THE CASE. * Mr. Dyett opened the battle. Holding in his hands the voluminous complaint of Mr, Foley, a document 01 suflicient length to strike terror into the hearts of any litigant, he said that His Honor, no doubt, had a vivid recollection of the same through its presentation when the temporary in- junction was granted, Judge Barrett—l remember it well, Mr. Dyett—I presume it 1s only necessary to con. sMer it read, Judge Barrett—You need not read it, for it is fair to presume that the opposing counsel nage alreway made themselves familiar with its contemts, " Mr. Dyett—Well then, before proceeding further, 1 will see what the other side have to offer, Mr. Lawrence said tuey ha@ only two papers to read, an aMdavit of Mr. Paimer’s and sore cor- respondence between Mr. Palmer and the Comp. troller, He proceeded to read the same, AFFIDAVIT OF CHAMBERLAIN PALMER, Francis N- Palmer, being duly sworn, says the tollows By salaries of the employes in the Chamberlain's oflice lor the year 1872 have been paid as @ Broad: way National Bank, $11,370 68: by the Tenth Natioual Bank, $4,915 63, and by the Tradesien's National Bank, 1,200 +4;' that there 1s due for suctr salaries trum the Fark ional Bank, $511 87, and jrom the Union irust Com pany, $109 01, which both those companies retase to pay the Chamberlain ‘or the reason assigned by them that the City Comptroller has forbidden them to dso; that the amount of money which has passed through his hands, as City Chamberlain and County Treasurer, tor the {Oat WAS $97,135 05, all of which, having been Usposited in banks, caponent might have earned for the publio treasury an interest o1 at least four per cent under tha power ‘conferred on him by the act ot 136i, it he had not ey Prevented by the interposition of the Comptrolle thaP iP han been Wiely: aaeigeen pag, of the Comptrol h day of Nove: rire he res ie ‘4 ber, 187%, he receive from the Comptroller let! r Hereto annexed), and to which he wage phere os Jn copy thereof is also annexed his d tersigned-by the Comptroller, tor the ‘transfer trom the OF the sui of $1 A800, which “was mom et a Ban of the sum 0! ich was paid by the Tenth National Bank” Swormekee met Sud FA. PALMER, ‘TIE CHAMBRRLAIN-COMPTROLLER CORRESPONDEN OR, The letters referred to in the above afiidavit have already been published. The Comptrolier gives in his letter certain alleged facts and figures upon which he olaims that the Tenth National Bank was not a proper depository of city and county funds, and, therefore, requesting that such funds in deposit in that bank be trausferred to some bank “of recognized standing ana means,’* The City Chamberlain's reply sets forth the ground- lessness of the Comptroller's claim, and encioses a warrant for $1,850,000 on the bank, and at the same time states that he does not waive his right to exclusive discretion im regard to the custody and deposit of the public moneys, ARGUMENT UPON THE CASE, Indge Edmonds said that they represented only ‘the Chamberlain and the Broadway and Tenth Na- tional Banks. There was no one present to repre- sent the Comptroiler or the Corporation or the Mayor. He did not know why these parties did not appear by counsel. They proposed to interpose a demurrer to the complaint of Mr, Foley, but mean- time they considered the interests of the city safe as to its funds en deposit in the various bunks se- lected as its depositories, and were willing to let, the temporary injunction remain, 1{ moditied so far as to allow the banks to pay to the Chamberlain so much of the interest accruing on the deposits as sufficed to the salaries o1 the clerks aud other employes in-his office, ir. Lawrence—This litigation is likely to last a long time, and, meantime, it is not fair to cut these men off irom receiving their pay. The laborer igs worthy of his hire. Mr. Dyett—The modification asked for is an in- geniously cunning device. He could not consent to it. By and by these banks, if allowed to pay tue expenses of the Chamberlain’s office, will claim that they should be reheved from paying imterest on the city deposits. His Honor would observe that there was not @ single denial made of any of the allegations contained in Mr. Foley's com.’ laint. The banks derived in 1868 some $500,000 interest on city deposits, ane yer all they paid was Some $17,000 for expenses ‘of thé Chamberiain’s oifice, They had since agreed to pay four per cent, but the interest was not added to the principal, but was kept in a separate fund. Judge Edmonds—What is it you want? Mr. Dyett -lam getting at it. Mr. Palmer comes unblushingly into Court and avers that he is under no obligation to account for the interest on city deposits and that the banks are not obliged to pay four per cent interest, Ju Barrett—I don't seé the point. Mr. Dyett—They ask a modification of the injunc- tion, so as to give color to objections to be inter= posed hereaiter, } Judge Barrett—I think you forded) 15-0 the case. I would suggest that it would be better to accept the proposed modification of the injunction and let it stand thus ti/l the merits of the case can be passed upon. r. Dyett—But I understand that the Board of Apportionment have. already made provision for expenses of the Chamberlain’s office. fudge Barrett—It is obviously better to have these expenses paid out of the interest on city de- posits, which the other side are willing to have done, than that they should come out of the tax- payers. All the modification the other side ask is to permit the banks to pay out of the interest on city tunds in their hands the expenses oi the Chamberlain’s office. Mr. Dyett said he had no objection to the clerks being paid, and he finally accepted the modification proposed. There was a lively discussion as to the form of the order, and this ended, the same was drawn in accordance with the proposed modification and the order thus drawn directed to stand until the first settlement of the action, CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NEW JURY LAW. Important Argument Before the Supreme Court, General Term—A Case Involving a Point of Deep Interest in Connection with Trials Under the New Jury Law— ‘ Right of Challenges in Criminal Cases, Asa general thing the proceedings in the Su- preme Court, General Term, are of the dullest imaginable character, They were yesterday, how- ever, of an exceptional character, and the court room not only was crowded, but the Judges on the bench—Judges Ingraham, Brady and Larned— showed that they too were keenly alive to the gravity of the new and important legal point about to be argued before them, This point was as to the constitutionality of the act passed by the Legis- lature last Winter entitled “An act in relation to challenges of jurors in criminal cases.’ The effect of the judicial determination, and particularly should it be against the constitutionality of the new. Jury law, requires no explanation, except that such decision would at once give a new trial to Stokes and pave the way to restored liberty for many criminal offenders now serving out sentences im the State Prison, to say nothing of possibly up- setting the entire present pees ee inthe Tweed trial, The case upon which this point is now raised for the first time does not belong to the causes celebres, bui as a test case possess@s all the ele- ments requisite tor a judicial decision, THE CASE IN POINT, Some time during the night of August 11, 1872, Wm. J. Barclay, as alleged, broke into a room of the Grand Central Hotel and stole $800 in money and some jewelry belonging to a [ace The robbery was traced to him, and upon this ensued bis arrest, trial and conviction before Recorder Hackett, it being shown that he was no novice in crime, ke having previously undergone imprisonment ior a robbery, the Recorder sentenced him to State Prison for eight years, Mr. William F. Howe, his counsel, ex- cepted to one of the jurors, He challenged this man for principal cause, The following were some of the questions put by Mr. Howe to the juror and his answers :— Q. Have you at this moment formed a belief as to the guilt of the prisoner? A. Yes, sir, Q That impression remains with younow? A. Yes, sir. : Q. If you were sworn you would render a verdict of guilty? <A. Yes, sir. The Court—He is competent. Mr. Howe excepted to the ruling, of course, and has appealed from the verdict that ensued to the Su- preme Court, General Term. ARGUMENT OF MR, HOWE, Several minor points in error were first argued by Mr. Howe, but the bulk of his afgument had reference to the constitutionality of the present Jury law. He insisted that the act referred to above is unconstitutional and void, and the rule of the commen law, as to challenges of jurors for principal cause, is not changed by that act. The constitution, he urged, provides that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property with- out due process of law.” He then proceeded to discuss what is due process of law as. provided in the constitution, He.cited the discussion in the, case of Taylor vs. Roster, which says that “the Meaning of the section seems to be, then, that no member of the State shail be disfran- chised or deprived of any ef his rights or privileges, uniess the matter shall be adjudged against him, upon trial had according to the course of the common law.” He next cited the decision in The Court of Appeals in the case of Wynehamer vs, The People (13 New York Rep., 446), where the Court, in speaking of this clause, say:—‘if this interpretation is correct, and it is sustained as well by history as by judicia! author- ity, the clause in question was intended to secure to every citizen the benefit of those rules of the common law by which judicial trials are regulated, and to place them beyond the reach of legislative suoversion, They are indeed virtually incorpo- rated into the constitution itself, and made thereby @ part of the paramouat law. rials, thereiore, at least such as are criminal, are to be regulated and conducted in their essential features, not by statutes, but oy common law, This the constitution guarante: Precisely how far the Legislature may go in chang. ing the modes and forms of judicial proceedings L Shall not attempt to define; but L have no hesita- tion in saying that they cannot subvert that fum- damental rule of justice which holds that every man shail be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty, This rule will be ound specilically uacor+