if If p^is' rt/ X4> 1/ v r TRIAL OF CHARLES B. HUNTINGTON FORGERY. PRINCIPAL DEFENCE: INSANITY. PREPARED FOR PUBLICATION BV THE DEPENDANT'S COUNSEL, FROM FULL STENOGRAPHIC NOTES TAKEN BY MESSRS. ROBERTS & WARBURTON, LAW REPORTERS. * » > c. NEW YORK: JOHN S. VOORHIES, LAW BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER, No. 20 NASSAU STEEET, 1857. v/ Goo 1857 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by JOHN S. VOOEHIES, in the Clerk's OflBce of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New Yorit,. TESTIMONIALS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE WORK. Tms volume contains a faithful report of the trial of Charles B. Huntington. The evidence, charge of the judge, and arguments of counsel, were taken down by us stenographicaUy, and we have no hesitation in certifying to the general accuracy of the work as published. ROBERTS & WARBURTON, No. 115 Nassau Street, N. Y. New York, Jan. 14, 1857. "W e have examined the report of the Huntington trial, made by Messrs. Roberts „, , y Def t s Counsel. JOHN A. BRYAN, ) We have examined our testimony in the Huntington trial, as reported by Rob- erts & Warburton, Stenographers, and certify to its entire correctness. C. R. GILMAN, WILLARD PARKER, Medical Witnesses. EERATA. On page 5, line 44, read " interpose a challenge," &c. On page 76, line 88, read " Carey v. Hotailing, 1 Hill, 311." On page 85, last line, read " Comm. v. Chandler, Thacher's Crim. Cases." On page 120, line 22, for "has been," read "is." On page 121, line 7, for " can get over," read "con over." On page 285, line 30, for "at regular," read "at irregular." INTRODUCTION. This volume, containing a faithful report of an important trial, is published by the Prisoner's Counsel. Their client having been convicted, they would not for trivial reasons per- petuate the evidence that their labors were unsuccessful. They are willing, however, to have their defeat commemorated, if they may thus to any degree promote the increase of valuable scien- tific knowledge or the purposes of humanity. And it is chiefly for these objects, that the present work is printed. : Huntington is now undergoing a felon's punishment. His case, remarkable in all its features, has special interest for the medical and legal professions in the circumstance that one defence put forward in his behalf was Insanity, of the species familiarly called "Moral." The opinions on that defence given at the time by Des. Paekek and Gilman of this city, though not contradicted by any witness, have been freely and most unfairly censured in many journals and periodicals and by a large portion of our com- munity. It is due to those gentlemen,—who, in their part of this case, performed, most intelligently, an honorable, and a very obvious duty,—to preserve, in such form as to prevent misrepresentation, the evidence of all they have said or done a* VI INTRODUCTION. which elicits the comment of their fellow-citizens. They did not shrink from testifying on subjects connected with their educa- tion, profession, and experience ; nor do they wish to avoid the responsibility attending what they have done. The error and prejudice of the hour must pass away, and the future will illus- trate that the accuracy of those gentlemen is not inferior to their confidence. It is the common notion that there is no such phenomenon in the world as " Moral Insanity." We cannot wonder that the multitude should thus pronounce, without knowledge, or seek- ing opportunity to know. They have ever regarded, and, for a long time to come, may still regard, with unwarrantable preju- dice, every suggestion of insanity, whatever its characteristics, as an immunity against the consequences of crime. The advo- cate who presents such a defence, and the scientific witnesses who prove it, must expect, of course, to be opposed, if not derided—embarrassed, if not vilified. Men, who claim to be respectable and veracious, have, on no authority but vague and irresponsible rumor, insinuated, if not directly charged, that Huntington's pretended insanity was an invention, attributable, in equal proportions, to the desperation of the Counsel, and the folly of the Physicians. These charges, like many stories afloat as to immense sums said to have been received by those Counsel for their services, are utterly destitute of foundation. When it was ascertained that Huntington's career, viewed in its peculiar details, seemed utterly irreconcilable with any ordinary rules or exhibitions of human conduct, and only capable of being fully understood or explained on the supposition that his mind was not sound, a most careful inquiry was had into his whole history, and a minute and laborious examination made of all his transactions. De. Paekee was consulted, that his intellectual capacity, learning, and experience might be applied in testing the condition of Huntington's mind—the distinct understanding INTEODUCTION. vii with that gentleman being, that the defence of insanity would or would not be presented, according as the clear and irrefragable proof to be obtained, demonstrated or disproved that hypothesis. At his suggestion, De. Gilman was associated with him to investi- gate the case. How well they discharged their dutyappears from their testimony, which the reader will find interesting and satis- factory. It is lamentable, indeed, that the reputations of two such men should be so flippantly assailed, because they under- took a duty, from which they could not have shrunk without refusing the aid of their scientific attainments in the effort to develop truth and secure justice. No one will deny this simple proposition :—that all men are either sane, insane, or idiotic. With idiocy we have not to deal at present. Sanity is a single and absolute condition. Insanity is equally so. But, there is this distinction between them. Sanity is exhibited in but one class of developments. Insanity shows itself in various manifestations. There is a wide difference between the quiet lunatic whose aberration is evinced in delusion on one subject, and the furious madman whom iron bars alone can securely confine. "Monomania" is a word accredited in nearly all works relating to insanity. Its signification is generally understood. But learned men differ as to whether the generic condition of insanity should be divided into several species, each receiving a separate nomenclature. Therefore, the phrases "general insanity" and "partial insanity," though often em- ployed by writers on Medical Jurisprudence, are by many (Drs. Parker and Gilman for example) rejected, as inaccu- rate, because insanity is not, in itself, general or partial. It exists or does not exist; and the condition must not be con- founded with its manifestations. Yet, for the convenience of ordinary or scientific philology, various designations have been attached to peculiar exhibitions of insanity, deriving their characteristics from the particular sub- viii INTEODUCTION. ject to which the aberration specially relates; as, for example, the "Homicidal Mania," " Pyromania," &c. It was strangely urged on Huntington's trial that, unless some name had been given to the individuality apparent in the exhibition of his in- sanity, the insanity itself should be denied. A fallacy so obvious might confirm or gratify Ignorance and Prejudice. It can not affect those who appreciate the very simple truth, that things exist irrespective of names. As to " Moral Insanity," those who have considered the subject know that the existence of insanity thus classified is recognized by " all authoritative writers." It is an insanity developed in reference to the moral nature, rather than the purely intellectual processes. Whether the intellect may be generally intact and yet the affections, emotions, or will be im- paired, is a question about which learned investigators differ. But none of those who deserve or enjoy any reputation doubt that insanity—as a physical disease of the brain—may be mani- fested, exclusively, in developments affecting the moral part of our nature. A most conclusive demonstration of this will be found in an appendix to this volume, from the pen of Dr. Gilman. The professional reader will readily perceive that the Jury could hardly find in favor of the accused on the defence of in- sanity, however well it was sustained by proof; because the learned Judge expressly charged that, under our law, "moral Insanity" would not excuse from responsibility for crime; that insanity, if " partial" or " Monomania," would not absolve the party unless it " wholly" deprived him of the power to distinguish between right and wrong; and that the opinions of the medical witnesses were formed on a " principle not recognized in our law." This was in effect overruling the whole defence of insan- ity. To anticipate that, under such instruction, the Jury would acquit, was to indulge mere hope not warranted by any deliberate or reasonable expectation. The verdict rendered cannot, there- INTE0DUCTI0N. IX fore, be justly considered a determination against the accused from any belief that the particular insanity alleged was not proved ; or, that the opinions of the Doctors were not reliable ; but that the whole theory of the defence was, in this respect, un- founded and could not be sustained by evidence of any nature or amount. T?o the Charge, in this respect an exception was taken, and it is not, perhaps, too much to say that the Judge here went farther than the law will justify. It has been said that to admit a defence of moral insanity would almost, if not entirely, abolish the notion of crime necessary to the welfare of society, and expose mankind to the depredations and vices of their fellows without the means of protection. Now, it is not likely that the defence of insanity will ever be made, except upon much proof and due considera- tion ; nor that it will prevail against public prejudice and violent opposition, unless most thoroughly and indubitably proved. The great danger, as shown by Dr. Eay and others, is, that it will be improperly rejected. And when humanity and mercy, guided by reason and science,come to regard the insane as objects of pity rather than vengeance, society will provide Refuges, of a condition intermediate between the State-prison and Lunatic Asylum, in which Unfortunates, while removed from the power to injure others, may escape undeserved punish- ment or degradation, and be afforded the attention and care suitable to those afflicted with the most terrible and mysterious of diseases. The Prosecution complained in Huntington's case that the defence of insanity was a surprise to them. This seems quite remarkable when we consider that, in his opening speech, the able District Attorney applied the phrase "moral insanity" to the prisoner's peculiar proceedings. But the complaint was specious and unjust, because eight or ten days before that on which the testimony closed, Mr. Bryan fully opened the whole defence to X INTEODUCTION. the jury. Huntington was in " The Tombs " from the 10th October —subject to examination not only by the intelligent Physician of that prison, but of any others whose judgment on his condition the Prosecution might desire. Yet not one witness was brought forward to gainsay any thing uttered by Doctors Parker or Gilman. It is hoped that there may be another trial of the prisoner ; and the time is awaited with much interest when any gentleman of equal capacity or reputation with either of those Physicians will come into a court of justice to testify that there is no such thing known or worthy of being recognized as " Moral Insanity." What may be the ultimate fate of Huntington, the future must develop. It is not at all remarkable that public prejudice should have made his defence difficult or unsuccessful. Thou- sands, who sneer at the idea of his insanity, believe in the most preposterous amongst the many delusions so rife in these days of Spiritual revelations, Mormonism, &c. Judges, in times past, who would hardly tolerate a suggestion of insanity, did not hesi- tate to encourage trials for witchcraft, nor to pronounce sentence of death on miserable old women convicted of Sorcery. Those who eagerly demanded the blood of a man condemned for murder, in this city, a few years since, and pretended to have clear knowledge of the nature and details of his crime, would not believe that he was dead, after he had committed suicide, and his heart had been taken out of his body in a public courtroom before a crowd of spectators! We would however, be much astonished at the treatment which Doctors Parker and Gilman receive from a few of their professional brethren, were we not acquainted with the fact that a jealousy exists amongst the mem- bers of that fraternity which is scarcely known amongst lawyers. " The American Medical Gazette and Journal of Health," for the present month, contains an editorial article in which the following passage occurs: "To talk of 'Moral Insanity,' as INTEODUCTION. xi affording an excuse for crime, and immunity from its penalties, while the intellect is unclouded, and this when the crime has been repeated almost daily for months and years with all the ingenuity and seceecy and adeoitness of an accomplished finan- cier, is to offer an insult to the human understanding, an olitrage upon the majesty of truth." Any one who reads the testimony in this volume will discover at once that the assumption con- tained in that part of this extract which we have italicized is utterly unfounded, and directly at variance with the whole tenor, and every detail of the truth. It was established beyond question that in no act of the accused, either of speculation or forgery, was there ingenuity, secrecy, or adroitness, but such an absence of each and every of those qualities, as to afford in itself strong evidence of his unsoundness. It is melancholy to find the editor of a work professedly scientific thus yielding to popular clamor, and assailing gentlemen of his own profession, in utter ignorance of facts. But time will correct such misrepresent- ations. The common sentiment of the hour allures the mass, and it is only by enduring, steady, and persistent effort that truth achieves a triumph over those who cannot or will not acknowledge its existence. This is particularly the case when, for the sake of a few afflicted creatures, the multitude are asked not only to surrender their prejudices, but also to encourage the hazard of danger to their persons or property. It may be long before society, in punishing the lunatic for acts of uncontrol- lable motive or impulse, cease to imitate the fabled example of Xerxes, who threw chains upon the Hellespont to restrain and punish that sea. But if there be any truth in the remark, with which we so constantly eulogize our race and age, that we are aiding civilization to beneficial progress, it may not be unrea- sonable to hope that the time must come when a scientific fact, entirely indisputable, will be recognized whatever may be its consequence; and the human being who, involuntarily and Xll inteoduction. from disease alone, loses natural control over either his will or his intellect, may be treated by his more fortunate fellow- creatures not as a criminal, to be loathed, but as an afflicted one to be cared for as enlightened and charitable experience may suggest.* New Yoek Januaryr, 1857. * The Publishers regret to find in this Volume several typographical errors; but it is due to the Printers to mention that these imperfections are attributable, in some measure, to the unusual dispatch with which the Publishers urged the work forward —the MS. being prepared, put in type and printed in about two weeks. The hasty pre- paration of th9 MS. will also account for the inaccuracies and incompleteness which will be discovered in some of the references to books and authorities. TEIAL OF CHARLES B. HUNTINGTON, at the Qtcmbtx Crnn of % Court tf <&zttml S&tmm IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK, COMMENCING ON TUESDAY THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER A. D. 1856.* « ♦ » His Honor Elisha. S. Capron, the City Judge, presided. A. Oakey Hall, Esq. (the District Attorney), with Wm. Curtis Noyes, Esq. and Ex-Recorder Talmadge, appeared as counsel for the prosecution. Messrs. James T. Brady aud John A. Bryan, appeared as counsel for the defendant. *"The trial of Charles B. Huntington was begun yesterday in this Court. LoDg before the hour appointed for the commencement of the proceedings, the room was thronged ; and when the judge took his seat upon the bench, the swarm of curiosity had overflowed into the corridor, and dripping down the stairs, had formed a large human note of interrogation in the Park. Since the trial of Monroe Edwards, nothing in the way of forgery has excited equal interest. If the court room had been many times as large, it would have been crowded to excess before the judge appeared upon the bench. * * * * * ***** " During the proceedings of yesterday, Mr. Huntington was apparently as uncon- cerned as Htiy ordinary spectator."—Extract from Report of N. Y. Daily Times of Dec. 11th, 1856. " The prisoner was brought into court about eleven o'clock. His imprisonment appears to have had no perceptible effect on his general appearance; and so far as a casual glance might determine, he does not seem in the least depressed by the po- sition in which he is placed. In fact, his expression, so far from denoting depres- sion of mind or great anxiety, is of a hopeful character. Tbe court room was crowded to excess, and the greatest interest was manifested in the prisoner. They crowded inside of the railings, anxious to get a glance at him as he sat beside his counsel; and so pressing did th^y become at last th»t the officers of the court were obliged to keep them within their proper bounds."—From the N. Y. Herald, Dee, 17,1856. 0 TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Tuesday, Dec. 16, 1856 : The Court opened at 11 o'clock A. M. Mr. Brady: Will the District Attorney specify which particular in- dictment, he moves on for trial ? Mr. Hall, the District Attorney (selecting one): We move this indict- ment which alleges the intent to defraud Wm. H. Harbeck. The Clerk, {Mr. Vandevoort): The defendant has not plead to it yet. Mr. Brady: That is a mistake. The defendant was arraigned at the last term, and plead not guilty to all the indictments. He pleads not guilty. Mr. Bryan rose, and addressed the Court as follows: May it please your Honor. We are ready to go to trial on one of the indictments charg- ing the Defendant with an intention to defraud Charles Belden. The Court will recollect, that at the last term there were 27 indictments brought in against this Defendant, and when the learned District Attorney moved on one of those cases for trial he was requested to state the specific one upon which the accused should prepare himself; but as it was impossible to be ready for trial then, the case went off for that term. The District Attorney then selected three indictments; one charged the intention to defraud Har- beck, the next to defraud Belden, and the third to defraud Bishop. The circumstances connected with each one of those cases were, in many re- spects, peculiar and widely different. It therefore became necessary for us to call upon the District Attorney to specify upon which one of those three indictments he would have the Defendant tried. He did not then specify ; but I left him with the understanding, that we were to have notice upon which of those three indictments the Defendant was to be tried first. We received no notice, although I called several times upon him to learn. Finally, when the trial of Baker was progressing at Newburgh, I went up there and saw him personally upon the subject ; and he informed me that he should try the Defendant first on one of the indictments charging him with the intention to defraud Belden, and he particularly mentioned that the indictment alleging the intention to defraud Bishop, should not be tried first. That arrangement was entered into in the presence of my senior associate (Mr. Brady), and I left the District Attorney with that understanding. We have prepared ourselves to go to trial accordingly, and we are not now properly prepared to try an indictment alleging the inten- tion to defraud any person other than Belden. The District Attorney : There exists a very extraordinary misunder- standing in relation to this matter. I have no recollection of any thing of the kind. The learned counsel has been in and out of my office every day for the last two weeks, and nothing has been referred to excepting the three indictments; one charging an intent to defraud Harbeck, one charg- ing an intent to defraud Belden, and the third an intent to defraud Bishop What I told him was, that those three out of the 27 would be tried first I did not know which of the three would be tried first. My intention is to try these three indictments one after the other. I do not suppose it makes any difference which is tried first. I only recollect at the hurried inter- view that took place between myself and my friend at Newburgh that it was agreed that those three, and those three only, were to be tried first. We shall move on the Harbeck case. Mr. Brady : If the prosecution is ready, as we assume they are to try these indictments which have been specified, I can imagine no good TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 3 reason why the indictment charging an in!ention to defraud Belden, should not be first disposed of. I regret that there has been any misunderstand- ing on this subject, because in this case, as in all others, the learned Dis- trict Attorney has conducted himself with liberality, fairness, and frankness. Certainly, my associate and myself were under the impression that Belden's case was to be tried first. Although these cases have a general resemblance to each other—although they are all indictments for forgery, yet the history of all these forgeries, as they are called, is dependent upon the transactions between Huntington and Belden, and by trying that case first, we would have a full exposure of all the facts and circumstances essential to determine the guilt or innocence of Mr. Huntington. As there are 27 indictments, and as the failure of one of these might possibly have great effect upon the dis- position of the others, I submit to the court, that it would be highly con- ducive to the interests of the people, as well as just to the rights of the accused, that the Belden indictment should be tried first. There are pe- culiar reasons, not necessary to be now disclosed, but not connected with any peculiar advantage to the defence, why we think that indictment should be tried first. The case on the part of the prosecution here, would certainly be a very simple one in the presentation of it to the Jury. They have indicted a man for forgery; and their case, so far as their direct examina- tion of the witnesses goes, will occupy but a short time. We have various defences in law and in fact, the merit or demerit of which will be passed upon by your Honor and this Jury; and if it should so happen that Mr. Huntington is convicted, then the legal question which must be disposed of, before there can be any final judgment upon any of these indictments, would arise in a more marked manner on the indictment charging an in- tent to defraud Belden, than any other here. We have certainly prepared our case upon that supposition, although we can go on and try the others. I should be reluctant to apply for any postponement; yet I do submit to the consideration of my learned friend, who knows the history of this case, that in view of what I have disclosed, and with the preparation we have made of this particular indictment, it would be right and proper, and no wrong to the public interests, to try that indictment first. I should be sorry to have an indictment tried which would disclose but a half, or a portion of the case, when by the trial of another the whole might be developed. I have suggested the possibility of Mr. Huntington being convicted ; but if, on the other hand, he should be acquitted on the Belden indictment, then again my friend would have discharged his whole duty, because, as I understand it, all these indictments grow out of the transactions between Mr. Huntington and Mr. Belden. That is all I have to say upon the subject. The District Attorney : All the errors which I commit in my public capacity, are due to the large liberality in respect to which the gentleman has so kindly complimented me. I regret that a misunderstanding has occurred between us, but there are reasons why we should try this Harbeck indictment first. The Court: I suppose that is a matter resting in the discretion of the District Attorney. At all events, he has charge of all the indictments, and is presumed to know what his public duty requires him to move on first. I do not understand that it is for the Court to direct the District Attorney to put this or that case upon the calendar. I am not in possession of the facts to enafele me to decide that question. 4 TEIAL OF HUNTINTGTON. Mr. Brady: Do I understand your Honor to say, that there is no power in the Court to direct the District Attorney which indictment to try ? The Court: I do not see how I can know the condition of the public business—which of the cases the District Attorney is prepared to try, and which not. I sit here to try any thing he presents. It is true, I have control enough to secure to the defendant all his rights, as far as I know how to; but I am not aware that I have any power to control the District Attorney as to which case he shall try first, and which not. He is pre- sumed to know which the public interest requires him to call on and try first. Mr. Brady: This, may it please your Honor, is a peculiar case. Tt will turn out to be distinguishable from any case of forgery ever tried in the United States. My learned friend knows its peculiarity, and I think it would be to the welfare of the public if he were to select such an indict- ment as would develop all the facts. The District Attorney: I am perfectly insensible of any difference in these cases, beyond this : That I know that the particular indictment I now move on, so far as the people are concerned, discloses more fully than any other the operations of this gentleman, and at a very late period in the history of these several transactions; and that it is an indictment which, as far as I can control it, will consume less time than any other, and give rise to less embarrassing questions. My selections are always made with a view to the saving of the public time, unless it infringes upon the rights of the accused. I know nothing beyond the fact, that this gen- tleman forged a note, as we say, with an intent to defraud Harbeck; and all the cases are of the same nature, only more incumbered with other transactions which we wish to shut out. I would observe that a day will probably be occupied in selecting a jury, and a further day for the prose- cution to open their case. Now, the counsel associated with my learned friend (Mr. Brady), are known to be the most prompt men in the city, and certainly in the two days they can get up a defence, and arrange a cross-examination. Therefore, I feel less delicacy in pressing this on. Mr. Brady: I must try the case, then, which the District Attorney moves on. If the Court has no power to order otherwise, we must sub- mit. Your Honor will note an exception to your decision, that you have no such power. The District Attorney: I will do every thing to facilitate the gentle- men to obtain access to books, papers, &c, and in the subpoenaing of wit- nesses. TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 5 Proceedings on Empanneling the Jury. Ernest H. Halshaw, called and sworn. Challenged for principal cause, and examined by Mr. Brady. Q. Have you heard of these several indictments against Mr. Huntington ? A. I read of it in the Herald, and in the Daily News. Q. Have you formed or expressed any opinion as to his guilt or in- nocence ? A. Not that I recollect. I have said, if the charges were true he should be punished. I will not be sure that I did say so, for there are a great many people come in my place. They may have spoken about it, and I may have expressed that opinion. Q. Have you formed any opinion in your own mind ? A. I have not. Q. Do you believe what you read in the papers ? A. No Sir ; I never believe any thing unless it is proven to me. I do not know that it was true, and therefore I do not believe it. Q. You do not remember to have expressed any other opinion than the one you now mention ? A. No Sir, I do not. Mr. Brady, My challenge is not sustained of course. The Juror here intimated to the Judge that he was too unwell to sit; and both sides consenting he was discharged. Leonard Loveland, sworn—challenged for piincipal cause, examined by Mr. Brady. Q. Have you expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused ? A. Not that I remember. Q. You read an account of the arrest of Mr. Huntington ? A. I did sir. Q. Did you assume the statements to be true ? A. I presume I did, as far as his arrest was concerned. I supposed that was true. Q. And did you assume the forgery was true ? A. I did not decide upon it of course, because there was no proof of it as far as I know—only parties stated they had notes which they received from him. Q. You assumed that they were forgeries ? A. I supposed they were as far as we believe any thing we read in the daily papers. Q. You believe as far as that, that he had delivered certain notes to persons, and that those notes were forgeries ? A. It was stated, by those whose names were signed, that they were forgeries. Q. That made some impression upon your mind, of course ? A. Of course it made some impression, but not sufficient, I suppose, to prejudice him. Mr. Brady: I interpose no challenge to the favor. The Court may try this juror. The Court: What is the particular objection to the favor that you would urge? 6 TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Mr. Brady : Of course, if a person who is called as a juror has formed or expressed an opinion, he is held by the law not to be indifferent 1 ad- mit that the challenge for principal cause is not sustained; but if he has formed " an impression," as it is denominated—something less than a settled opinion—as to any of those facts, then I think he is not indifferent in the eye of the law. There is nothing that gives a man more offense than to tell him that he is prejudiced, for we all think that we are not prejudiced. What I claim in a case of this kind is, that he has read an account, from which he has assumed that forged paper was possessed by Huntington, and that he passed it to other parties ; which is assuming a great deal of what is to be proved in this case, and therefore is not indifferent. The District Attorney: I understand this matter to resolve itself into this : whether a man has formed or expressed an opinion, or has a bias favorable or unfavorable to the guilt of the prisoner, as to the particular transaction on trial. Mr. Brady: His Honor Judge Strong directed Baker to be tried out of the city of New York, and sent him down to Orange County, although two juries had been successfully empanneled here, one of which disagreed, and, in consequence of the sickness of one of their number, the second jury was discharged. When the motion was made to change the place of trial, I took the ground that it had been demonstrated by the empaneling of two juries in this city, that we could get here a fair and impartial jury to pass again upon the cause. His Honor decided, that that was not so, and that he thought the state of public opinion was such in the Baker case—though I never had the pleasure to be informed where he ascertained the fact—that we could not in this city, after having successfully empan- neled two juries, procure an impartial one. I refer to that case as authority upon this challenge; because it is obvious, from the statements of this wit- ness, that these accusations against Mr. Huntington have been made the subject of newspaper publicity. We all know that it has been assumed by most of the press that he was guilty, as is usually the case. This being the case, and Judge Strong having given his judicial opinion and explanation of the difficulty of escaping from public feeling, I shall assume that this gentleman, who has read the papers, who has assumed that the bills de- livered by Huntington were forgeries, cannot, however conscientious, and however fully persuaded in his own mind that notwithstanding the previous impression he can decide impartially, take his seat as a juror. Chief Justice Marshall, in an opinion known to all the profession, remarkable for its sound law and common sense, has said that a man cannot be trusted in reference to such matters—that men are often mistaken when they suppose themselves to be impartial and unprejudiced. I do not know this juror personally. I believe he is a builder, and from his answers we can all perceive that he is an intelligent and fair-minded man; but I submit that he has assumed cer- tain things to exist which are not yet proved, and that there is an impres- sion upon his mind adverse to us. The Court: What did you understand him to say. Mr. Brady : (to the Juror) I understood you to say that you read an account of this in the newspapers—that you had as much belief in it as usual in reading the papers ; it was stated that Mr. Huntington had forged a paper, and if I understood you correctly, assumed that he had it in hig possession, and it had gone out. TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 7 The Juror: Yes. It was stated in the papers that persons had said that the forged paper was not their paper; and therefore I supposed it was so. The Court: This juror is called and challenged for principal cause, and that challenge Ifas been withdrawn as not sustained. He is then chal- lenged to the favor; and it must appear that the witness has a bias one way or the other—such a bias as would render him, in all probability, not in- different between the people and the prisoner. Now, this bias ought to be between the prisoner and the people in reference to the particular charge contained in this indictment, for he is to try that; although there may be stories afloat that the prisoner forged a thousand papers, yet this may not be one of them, and it may. It seems to me that a person can hardly read a statement of any transaction without having an impression made upon his mind ; and if the objection we are considering, which has I think been spun down to the smallest point, is adopted, I do not see how an intelligent man, having read a history of any transaction having reference to crime, can be a competent juror. No man reads an article without receiving some impression. But the impression made upon the mind of a person who is called as a juror, by reading any statement having reference to that trans- action, should be such that he has the consciousness that he, by reading the testimony, would not readily yield to the evidence—that the impression made by reading the statement is a fixed, and not a mere casual one. In my judg- ment he is not an incompetent juror. I should call him, according to my view of the law upon that subject, indifferent and competent. Mr. Brady excepted to the ruling of the court. The juror was then challenged peremptorily. Thomas M. Lewis called—challenged for principal cause, and examined by Mr. Brady : Q. I suppose you read the account of the arrest of Huntington ? A. Yes, Sir, in the papers. Q. Do you remember in that account that the name of Phelps, Dodge & Co. was alleged to be forged ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you form or express any opinion of Huntington's guilt or innocence ? A. I did not express any opinion that I remember. Q. Did you form any ? A. I think I did. By the District Attorney : Q. The opinion that you formed, was it as to Mr. Huntington's guilt or innocence of forging the name of Phelps, Dodge & Co., and passing the paper to Mr. Harbeck ? A. I formed the opinion that it was forged paper. With regard to its being passed to Harbeck, I do not remember ? My opinion went so far as this—that if what I heard was true, the defendant was guilty of this forgery. Juror set aside. Joseph T. Harris called—challenged for principal cause, and exam- ined by Mr. Brady: Q. Did you read about these charges against Huntington ? A. Yes, Sir. 8 TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Q. What is your occupation ? A. A real-estate broker. Q. Did you read that some of the forgeries, alleged to be committed by Huntington, were paper of Phelps, Dodge & Co. ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you form or express an opinion whether Huntington was guilty or innocent ? A. I formed an opinion from what I read in the papers. I took it for granted that the statement was correct, but as ex-parte evidence, of course. I do not think it would so bias my mind as to render me incapable of rendering a verdict in accordance with the evidence. Q. Did you express that opinion ? A. I do not remember that I did. The Court: The juror says that he has read such a history of the case as was published in the papers, and states that, if that was true, he has formed an opinion,—but the evidence was ex-parte, and he does not assume that it was true. Assuming it were true, then he would think the defend- ant guilty: but he has not formed such an opinion as would prevent his finding a different verdict, if there was sufficient proof. Now, the question is, whether the juror, in that state of mind, is incompetent, on a challenge for principal cause. I have in my mind an old case where the juror an- swered almost in the same way, and it was there decided not to be a good principal cause. I so decide. Mr. Brady : We except to your Honor's ruling. (Challenged to favor. Mr. Hunter and Mr. Carpentier appointed triers.) Mr. Brady (resuming examination): I understand you to say that you have read about these charges of forgery against Huntington ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And part of the statement read by you was, that some of the forged paper was that of Phelps, Dodge & Co. ? A. Yes. Q. That you formed, an opinion as to his guilt ? A. Yes. Q. But not such an opinion as would withstand rebutting testimony ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. That you took for granted, the publication was correct ? A. Yes. Q. But if evidence against that appeared, you would decide according to evidence ? A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Brady: I ask your Honor to instruct the triers that it is not neces- sary, to sustain a challenge to the favor, that the juror should have obtained an impression as to the guilt or innocence of the accused upon the particular charge tried, provided that be one of a number of charges of the same kind, and his impression is as to the whole. The Court: My opinion has always been that this bias must be in ref- erence to the particular charge. A general bias would not come within the rule. The triers must be satisfied that the impression made upon the mind of the juror, from what he has read, has created such a bias in his mind as renders it probable that he is not indifferent, and that testimony given in the case would not be likely to lead his mind to a correct conclusion in reference to this particular case. I shall be obliged to confine it to that. (Defendant's counsel took exception. The triers found the challenge true.) Jonathan 0. West challenged. Had formed an opinion, but not ex- pressed it; further testimony would alter it. Had that opinion then. Set aside. TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 9 Charles H. Groves, challenged. Does not remember to have ever formed or expressed any opinion as to Huntington's guilt or innocence. Had met Mr. Dodge, but was not particularly acquainted with him. As- sumed the narrative in the papers to be correct; but that did not make any impression on his mind. Had not thought a great deal about the subject. Triers found the challenge to favor not true. Juror sworn, and took the place of Mr. Carpentier as a trier. Harvey F. Minnerly called. Excused in consequence of sickness. Simon Farrar called : Challenged for principal cause, by defendant's counsel: Q. Have you formed or expressed any opinion whether Huntington is guilty or innocent of the charge of forgery ? A. No, Sir. Q. Have you read about it ? A. I have, Sir. Q. Did you read that Phelps, Dodge & Co., were named as some of the persons defrauded ? A. I think I do recollect the name. Q. Did not what you read make some impression on your mind ? A. It made an impression. Q. As to his guilt or innocence of these forgeries ? A. Yes, Sir. (Challenge for principal cause withdrawn, and challenged to favor.) By the District Attorney : Is that an impression or an opinion ? A. An impression. Q. Not a fixed opinion ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you ever hear, before to-day, that Mr. Huntington was charged by Mr. Harbeck with passing forged notes of Phelps, Dodge & Co. to him! A. No, Sir. Mr. Brady: I ask from your Honor the same instructions to the triers that I requested before : that it is not necessary, in order to exclude the Juror, that he should have formed an impression as to the guilt of the ac- cused upon the particular charge tried ; but that it is enough that he had that impression as to all the forgeries, of which the one particularly on trial is an instance. The Court: I cannot consistently give the triers any different charge from that I have already expressed. It seems to me that the subject of in- vestigation should be confined to the subject-matter of the trial. Mr. Brady: We except to your Honor's charge, and also to your re- fusal to charge as we desired. (Triers found the challenge not true.) Challenged peremptorily. John Moneypenny: Had read an account of the transaction in the Journal of Commerce. Believed it to be as true as most other things in the papers. Believed it then, and now, to a certain degree. Saw nothing to contradict the statement in the papers. Triers found the challenge to favor true. Set aside. Morris L. Samuels called and challenged. Had not formed any conclu- sive opinion from what he read, of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Did not believe all he read to be true. Whether it was true or not remained to be developed by the evidence. 10 TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Challenge withdrawn. Juror sworn, and took the place of Mr. Huntley, as a trier. Frederick G. Foster called, and challenged by defendant's counsel. Q. You no doubt have read the account of Huntington's arrest ? A. I am not aware that I read the account of his arrest. I read an account of some part of the notes he was said to have forged. Q. You read some account of the transaction ? A. Yes. Q. Did you read among other things that the forgeries included the name of Phelps, Dodge & Co., A. I heard or read it. Which, I do not recollect. Q. From what you heard or read have you formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused? A. I have come to the opinion that where there is so much smoke there must be some fire ; that is, that where there are so many pieces of forged paper, he may have had something to do with forging one of them. Q. You assumed that as to the quantity, then, that it was correctly stated that he had a quantity of forged paper ? A. I understood so. Q. You would require some evidence to remove that impression ? A. As regards that, I should feel that I could give a verdict according to the evidence. Q. But you would take your seat with an impression already existing that he had something to do with that forgery ? A. I have expressed my opinion as clearly as I can, so far as I can analyze my mind. By Mr. Noyes, for the prosecution. Q. Is the opinion you have formed an absolute one, or simply hypo- thetical ? A. It is not an absolute one. Mr. Brady:—I ask your Honor to give the same instructions to the jury I formerly requested; and understanding your Honor to rule as before, we take exception. The Court:—Gentlemen Triers, it is for you to decide whether this Juror stands indifferent between the people and the prisoner ; whether he has any bias in his mind, no matter whether for or against the prisoner, that would be an obstacle in the way of his forming an unprejudiced opinion upon the testimony which should be submitted to him in this case. Mr. Brady: And I understand him to say that he has formed this kind of an impression, from what he has read, that (to use his own illus- tration) where there is so much smoke there may be some fire; that the number of forgeries being so great, he had an impression that Huntington might be connected with some of the forgeries, but that it was not an abso- lute opinion. Juror: That is so. The triers found the challenge not true. Challenged peremptorily. Samuel Koffman called and challenged : Was in Europe at the time of the transaction. Since his return had heard a great deal in private circles about it. Had formed an opinion as to the guilt of the defendant. Set aside. TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 11 Paul D. Burbank called; challenged by the District Attorney : Had formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Set aside. Arthur Dornen called and challenged: Had read and heard read columns as to the transaction, and had made up his mind as to the guilt of the defendant. Set aside. William Holmes called ; challenged by defendant's counsel: Q. Have you formed or expressed an opinion as to whether Huntington was guilty or innocent ? A. I have not. Q. You read an account of his arrest ? A. Yes, Sir, the same as I read any thing else. Q. Do you remember it was charged that he had forged on Phelps, Dodge & Co.? A Yes. Q. What paper did you read it in ? A. The Daily Times. Q. You have read something about it since ! A. I do not know that I have. Q. Have you heard it talked over ? A. No. Q. Do you know any of the parties named in connection with the matter ? A. No. Q. Did you believe what you read to be true ? A. I supposed it was true, or else there would be nothing of it. I do not know that I believed it exactly. Q. You believed that he had forged paper in his possession ? A. I supposed it was as the paper said. Q. And that he passed some of it away, or uttered it ? A. I do not know that I read sufficient. I did not read all the particu- lars—only that something of the kind had been done. Q. Did you form an impression as to whether he had or had not been connected with those forgeries ? A. I cannot say that I did. Q. What part of that statement did you take to be true ? A. I read the whole of it. I cannot remember any of the particulars. Q. You had no doubt that he was arrested ? A. No. Q. You had no doubt that he was charged with several forgeries ? A. No. Q. Did you not form some impression whether he was rightly or wrong- fully charged ? A. I cannot say that I did. Challenge withdrawn. Juror sworn. John Nicholson called and challenged : Had not formed or expressed any opinion on the question of defendant's guilt or innocence. Is not in the habit of forming an opinion on ex-parte evidence. Had no opinion as to whether the defendant was guilty or not. Challenge withdrawn. Juror sworn. Edgar Wright called and challenged : Q. Have you formed any opinion as to whether Huntington is guilty or innocent? A. No fixed opinion. Q. Any opinion ? A. Yes, I have formed an opinion from reading it. Q. Did you form it from what you read in the paper. 12 TELAL OF HUNTINGTON. A. Yes, Sir, from what I read and heard. Q. Did you read that Phelps, Dodge TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 23 invite your attention to this distinction, that you may appreciate the oath which you have taken—true deliverance to make between this same people of the State of New York, and this prisoner at the bar—that you may not forget the great plaintiff who is without, in your sight of the unit defendant. Why, your- selves and myself, as citizens—your fellows whom you left this morning—your neighbors—your friends, are the plaintiffs in this criminal action. There is no private wrong that is to be gratified here to-day—no private malice that is to be answered—no matter of damage to be estimated by dollars and cents. Therefore, Gentlemen, you will at once appreciate that when the criminal action began from the people of the State of New York against this defendant, there became an interest due, first—to yourselves,. as citizens controlled by your oaths, and, secondly, as jurors, and it may be to some extent as legal automata in the hands of the court, whenever certain cases and circumstances arise. This criminal action is brought before you in this light—not as a matter of fancy upon my part, but as a matter of record. This little bit of paper (holding up the indictment) tells the story of the wrong which this plaintiff—this people—have suffered. It is the record of the court—the indictment; and its endorsement runs, as I have told you, " The People versus Chaeles B. Hunt- ington." This is the pleading on the part of the people, its sentences, sought to be artistically constructed, charging a specific offense; and the defendant's answer is embraced in two simple words, " Not guilty." " The jurors of the people of the State of New York, in and for the body (as I have told you) of the city and county of New York, upon their oaths present (to your deliberations regarding the facts), that Charles B. Huntington,, on the first day of July last, feloniously (as a matter of felony)? did falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, and cause and procure to be falsely made, forged, and counterfeited, and willfully act and assist in the false making, forging, and counterfeiting, a cer- tain instrument in writing for payment of money, commonly called a promissory note, which false forged, and false counter- feited instrument in writing, commonly called a promissory note, for payment of money, is as follows (that is to say, the note, which is a thing of itself, down to the end of the signature, the endorsement being another part of the note):— New York, July 1st, 1856, $6,500. Four months after date we promise to pay to the order of ourselves $6,500 at the Bank of Commerce, value received of Minnesota Mining Company, due Nov. 4th. PHELPS, DODGE, & CO. With intent to injure and defraud William H. Harbeck, and divers other persons to the jurors unknown, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of this people of the State of New York." 21 TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. There is a second allegation, charging that if he he did not forge, if he did not make it, if he did not assist in making it,—he did utter that note against the form of the statute in that case made and pro- vided, against the peace of the people of the State of New York in that behalf; and in each instance it will be forgery in the third de- gree. Now, it is very singular, and something which eminently challenges the attention of the legal scholar, to know when and how and why the encyclopedia of criminal law robbed the dictionary of honest labor of the word Foegeey. You will not be able to find why and wherefore that the spendthrift sitting at his desk in secret—in self-imposed exile from the social community—alone with his crimes and his vices, should do that according to the nomenclature of the law, which the arm of honest labor does as it strikes upon the anvil—forge—forgery! And yet through many years it has come down to us to mean that worst, that mean- est, that most despicable of all the commercial lies which a man can tell, or which a man can make,—a black lie and a white lie at the same time. One would think, as a man sits down at his desk to make a little forged lie that the whiteness of the paper might teach him something of hesitation,—might induce him to pause, when the type of the crime came upon the paper to stain it as the very thought and the very intent of his crime has stained his soul. Yes, one of the worst of lies. A lie so hard to guard against—a lie which takes away not only the good reputation of the commercial community in the particular instance where it falls, where it is forged, where it strikes, but seeks to take away the good commercial name and reputation of men who for years and years have built it up in your midst;—a lie which is some- times told to the injury of a man's best friends in this world (for your lying forger spares no one, so that it serves his purpose). Many years ago the crime existed under its own name of that time, and despotism laid its strong arm upon and stamped the crime with abhorrence—that despotism which, however political- ly it may become an evil, has at least this alleviation, that it punishes crime promptly, and it judges crime equitably at the same time that it punishes promptly. In the reign of Justinian the forger was condemned to banishment—to exile. Observe the very accordance of the punishment with the crime. He who exiled himself by his own intent to injure and defraud his neigh- bor—exiled himself in solitude to perpetrate his crime—was con- demned in solitude most fit to expiate it. As he had exiled him- self from his fellows in the manufacture of the crime, so he was exiled from his fellows in the exemplary punishment the law gave to it. But commercial spirit decayed, and commerce fell; and as one of the consequences of that decline, we find in the early history of the common law forgery was only a misdemeanor punished by personal degradation. The man stood in the pillory with his ears cut,—an object of abhorrence, an object for scorn TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 25 "to point his slowly-moving finger at,"—the liar—the commer- cial liar! Commerce progressed, and had its various ramifica- tions throughout England, and throughout the world. The machinations of the forger increased with his opportunities for it in the commercial world; and then as the opportunities of com- merce increased with the opportunities of the forger, the statute came in, and at one time the forger was punished with death. That continued until the statutes of William the Fourth very singularly, and perhaps as the best stamp of the equity of the law, went back more than a thousand years to this very reign of Justinian, and again transported the forger to 'exile. Such con- tinues to be the punishment in England until the present day. Now, whatever there may be in the character or appearance of men who forge, I will venture to say that there is nothing in the character of the crime that calls for sympathy. I have sometimes seen the burglar come up to this bar, and have felt a sort of physical admiration for the man—for his desperate look, his desperate deeds—as one would admire the gladiator should we see him, as we sometimes physically admire him as we read of him. I have even sometimes in the performance of my duty felt a sympathy with the provocations of the manslayer. But for your false pretender, who steals your money by exhibiting a lie, and for your forger I never could entertain any sympathy. Now what says our Statutes ? The revisors who undertook to mold this whole law of forgery into a little sentence, as regards the commercial details of the crime, said they intended—as your Honor will find the notes to say—they intended to reach by this section every possible kind of forgery that could exist in the commercial world. The prosecution think they have done so; and I have scarcely known a case of forgery to be conceived, that did not come within the operation of this section, I will read it:— Mr. Brady :—What number is that? The District Attorney :—It is Section 23, of the law against forgery. " Every person who with intent" (as my learned friend, Mr. Brady, correctly stated yesterday—that being the very first thing that the Revisors put to you as Jurors,) " with intent to in- jure or defraud " (the old common law used the word " defraud," which was rather circumscribed in its meaning, but the revisers following out this intention to comprehend every species, have added the word " injured," which is very comprehensive,)—" with intent to injure or defraud " (and such you will see is the lan- guage of the charge in the indictment, following this statute,)— "shall feloniously make, alter, forge, or counterfeit any instrument, or writing, being," (whether it was or not) " or purporting to be, the act of another, by which any pecuniary demand or obliga- tion shall be, or shall purport to be created, increased," (if it were increased before)'" discharged from its creation, or diminished from its creation, or by which any right or rights, or property what- 26 TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. ever shall be, or purport to be transferred, discharged, convened, di- minished, or in any manner affected, by which false making, or forging, or altering, or counterfeiting any person may be affected, bound, or in any way injured in his person and property; — the person so charged, upon conviction thereof, shall be deemed guilty of forgery in the third degree. Under that statute this pleading has been framed. Now, in olden times, before the law of forgery had been molded into a practical shape, by the aid of the commercial lights of the age, and before that light which matured jurispru- dence poured upon it during the earlier part of this century,— the offense of forgery was very limited. It will be necessary for me to advert to this, to show you some matters regarding the story I will narrate, of the wrongs that the People of the State of New York complain of against this defendant. At this early period the crime consisted in the counterfeiting of the semblance of something, and hence very many persons escaped, because they did not—in their writing of forged paper, make it correspond with the similitude of that which it was meant to imitate or alter. You will perceive, Gentlemen, that our Statute has made it perfectly broad, for it includes " every person who, with intent to injure shall feloniously make or forge or counterfeit, &c." It then extends to every possible case; and formerly the whole thing turned upon the physical fact of the injury to defraud. Perhaps I might more correctly say the pecuniary effect of the forging. But now, since the rule has been so well established in all the appliances of society to trade, commerce, and manufactures, that a man shall in law be taken to intend the consequences of his own act, that whole refinement of learning has fallen. You prove a man's act, and the law infers his intent from that act, and if you put in evidence the consequences of that act, why then comes the maxim of the law, that every person shall intend the consequences of his act, unless he shall by due proof, equal to that which is brought against him, show that these circumstances are defective, and that he had no intent to defraud or injure. If a man who is your enemy hold a pistol to your head and explodes it, and you are killed or injured, and then he turns round and says to the law officers, " I had no intention to injure or kill that man," it is no answer, he being your enemy, and bearing you malice, and his act having no appearance of accident. It will not do for a man to walk into yonder bank, and present a forged cheque, and, after he has made it, and been paid for it, and, after it has been discovered to be a forgery, to say, " I did not intend to injure either the bank or the man whose name I forged, because I intended to make that money good—because I intended to pay that man back his money." For you will perceive that no man has a right to qualify his own intent, or to defend his intention upon any con- tingency within his own control. When an act is complete, the natural presumption springing from that act is taken, and not the TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 27 hypothetical one he may have upon his mind, though he evidenced it by acts. Now, the story which that indictment tells in its legal lan- guage is something like this, as it will appear by the evidence we shall give: This defendant, at my right over the bar, last spring and summer, and perhaps some years previously, was a note-broker in Wall street, somewhat well known in business under his own name and on his own account, and with no associate, no partner. It was held out to the world in the name of Chaeles B. Hunting- ton. He had an office in Wall street, but to you, Gentlemen, who are familiar with all the commercial matters of this metropo- lis, it is not necessary to say any thing further than that he was a note broker. You understand the meaning of that word without my explaining it. With what he did prior to a certain day, at this time we have nothing to do. He had married into the family of the Barrys; and a young gentleman, a Mr. Barry, who was his brother-in-law, occupied a position in another part of the city from Wall street,—that part of the city where the honest arm of labor falls, where all the appliances of honest industry are seen ; and from that place he was taken by Huntington to Wall street to pay him a higher salary, or give him better employment, and he is installed in a little office, paid $15 a week—$60 a month ; and he sits in his office prepared to do any thing that his brother-in-law, Huntington, will tell him; in whom, of course, he has great confidence, as he should. A week or so passed by, and nothing was given him to do. Again he goes to see Huntington, and remonstrated, as I think the evidence will tell you, that he must have something to do. Huntington thereupon told him to go to the office, and he would give him something to do; he had not time to speak to him just then, but he would give him some work. Accordingly, Mr. Huntington, in his own handwriting, sends to Mr. Barry a memorandum upon which is endorsed direc- tions, which will be shown in evidence, for the filling up of certain notes,—dates specified, amount, time, maturity to be accomplish- ed, &c, &c.—every thing but the name. But who was to make it ?—who was not to make it % Now, that of itself is the most suspi- cious circumstance in the world. One would have thought at the outset he would have said, "Phelps, Dodge & Co.," for instance, "a large firm who have their millions of credit and responsibility, want a note filled up to sign, and you must do it nicely." Nothing of that kind; nothing but a bare, simple memorandum upon a piece of paper, not signed in this respect by his own name, "Huntington," no address, nothing but the bald matters which are necessary to be put into a note; no note sent, no book of notes sent. Barry was directed to go out into the street, get his notes, and fill them up according to this specification. Among the very notes filled up by Barry at the solicitation of Huntington, upon the day in question, appears the very note which is the basis of this 2S TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. indictment. We therefore start in the case with the principal part of the note traced directly to the manufacturer, Huntington, or as the indictment says—" willingly acting and assisting, in " making, counterfeiting, forging, &c, the instrument set forth. And Barry gives that very note which is the subject of this in- dictment into the custody of Huntington. W hat to do with it Barry knew not. That was a secret in the breast of Huntington. Huntington soon makes his appearance in the office of Mr. William H. Harbeck, well known as a business man in this city, and he goes in and says, " Mr. Harbeck, have you any money to lend to-day?" Mr. Harbeck and Mr. Huntington had' had some acquaintance and dealing before. " Yes," says Mr. Harbeck, "I have." Said Huntington, "I want $21,000 upon the check of Hoffman & Leonard with my check annexed, and the col- laterals which are here in my hand," giving them to Harbeck. There was the check of Hoffman & Leonard, his own check for $21,000, with the collaterals five or six in number, one of them the note which is the subject of this indictment,—to wit, one made by Barry for $6,500, and which then turned out to be signed, or purported to be signed, by the extensive firm of Phelps, Dodge did this giving of notes by Huntington for you to fill up, take place ' A. I think it was in July. Q. Are you acquainted with the handwriting of Huntington—have -ou ever seen him write ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Look at this piece of paper, and see if you know whose handwriting TBIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 33 £The paper produced is marked A, and is as follows: July 1st, three months .... 6,500. July 1st, three months . 6,500. July 1st, four months .... 6,500. July 1st, four months ..... 6,600. Value received of Minnesota Mining Co. We promise to pay to our own or- der. A. It resembles Mr. Huntington's. Q. Have you ever seen that before ? The Court: Does he speak of the whole paper ? The District Attorney : Yes. The Witness: I have no particular memory of that piece of paper. Q. Did you at any time fill out, at Mr. Huntington's request, notes of that description of paper ? A. I filled out a great many notes. I filled out notes for him. I have no doubt I filled them out. To the best of my belief I did. I cannot swear to it. Q. I will show you the note set up in the indictment (marked B. and is partly printed and partly written.) Do you know the handwriting of the body of that note ? A. Yes, Sir, It looks like my handwriting. [It is as follows, the written parts being in italics.] $6,500 New York, July 1, 1856. Four Months after date we promise to pay to the order of ourselves sixty-five hundred Dollars, at The Bank of Commerce. Value received of Minnesota Mining Co. PHELPS, DODGE & CO. No.---Due Nov. 4th. Endorsed " PHELPS, DODGE $ CO." Q. Do you know anything of the handwriting of the body or the sig- nature of those (handing witness 3 notes and 1 draft, marked C, D, E and F.) A.I do not think I do, Sir. [These notes and draft are as follows: They are partly written and partly printed—the written parties being in italics.] [C] $5,500 New York, March 12, 1856. Nine Months after date, / promise to pay to the order of myself, Fifty-five hun- dred Dollars. Value received. No.---Due Dec. 15. PETER K. KNAPP. Endorsed " PETER K. KNAPP." [D] $5,569 44 -Vew York, July 2d. 1856. Four months after date we promise to pay to the order of ourselves, Fifty five hundred and sixty-nine 44-100 Dollars. Value received. BLISS, BRIGGS $ DOUGLASS. No.---Due Nov. 5. Endorsed "BLISS, BRIGGS $ DOUGLASS." [E] Dolls. 2,331 41. New York, June 13, 1856. Nine months after date, we promise to pay to the order of Thomas N. Dale & Co., Twenty-three hundred and thirty-one 41-100 Dollars, Value received. THOMAS N. DALE& CO. No.---Due March 13-16. Endorsed ''THOMASN. DALEdt CO." 3 34 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. $7,500. New York, July 1st, 1856. Four months after date, pay to the order of myself, seventy-five hundred Dollars, Value received and charge the same to account of To Graydon, Swanwick & Co. J. W. KINGSLEY. Due Nov. 4. [Written across the face. " GRAYDON, SWANWICK & CO."] Endorsed « J. W. KINGSLEY." Q. Have you any recollection of ever writing that note? A. I cannot say, for it is so long since I filled it out. Q. You say that you think the body of that note is in your handwriting. How about the signature ?„ A. That is not in my handwriting. Q. That you know nothing about? A. I know nothing about it. Q. What did you do with this note (marked B) and the others—whom did you give them to, if anybody ? A. Sometimes I left them at the office—left them on the desk at the office. I believe one or two I gave to Mr. Huntington. I do not remember which notes I gave to him. Q. Repeat that answer again ? A. I left some of the notes on the desk while he was absent, and I think I gave him one or two. I think I gave them to him twice. Q. I see upon this note, the initials of your name " H. H. B." (Note marked B.) Do you know why you put those initials there ? A. I did so at the request of Mr. Bowyer, the police officer at the City Q. When did you put your initials on it? A. I think after my statement before the magistrate. Q For what purpose did you put these letters on it ? .. He told me to do so, so as to recognize it again. Q. How many notes in all do you remember filling up for Mr. Hunting- ton, at his request, taking to the office, and leaving or giving to him? A. I do not remember the number. Q. About how many ? Can you give us an idea ? A. I suppose ten or fifteen—somewhere about that—ten I suppose. Q. In whose handwriting is that piece of paper? (handing witness a small piece of paper Marked G)? A. I suppose the same as the others. Mr. Brady : That is your handwriting ? A. No, the same handwriting as the others. Q. In whose handwriting is that? (paper marked H). A. The same as the others. Q. Mr. Huntington's ? A. It resembles his handwriting. $.. Have you ever seen that before ? (paper marked J.) A. I suppose I have. I cannot remember any of them. Q, Look at this one (the last.) In whose handwriting is that? A. The same as the others. Q. Have you ever seen that before ? (paper marked J.) A. I have no recollection of seeing that before. Q. In whose handwriting is that, to the best of your knowledge and belief? A. It does not look so much like his handwriting as the others. Q. Here are two envelopes addressed to you. Have you ever had those before ? A. Yes. (Envelopes marked R. & L.) TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 35 Q. In whose handwriting is the superscription of each ? A. I suppose it must be Mr. Huntington's. I do not think that (marked L) resembles his much. That (marked K) resembles his handwriting. [These slips of paper and envelopes are as follows :] Get 4 notes and fill them up nicely, C. B. H. [H] Make me 6 notes of 5000 each payable to the order of the drawers, dated July 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, at 4 mos., payable at the Bank of Commerce. Get a nicer note than the last. [I] In pencil. Fill me up four notes of $5, 000 each. Dated July 1-2-5-7 at four months pay- able to our own order at Mercantile Bank. C. B. H. [J] In pencil. April 1st, 4 mo. 6250, 00 " " 5 mo. 6250, 00 " " 6 mo. 6250, 00 M " 6 mo. 6250, 00 Order of ourselves. Value rec'd of Minnesota Mining Co. [K] Envelope. H , H. Barry Eeq. [LI Envelope. H. H. Barry Esq. Q. Did you ever fill up such kind of notes for any one else, while you were in business there ? A. No, Sir. Not in Wall street. Q. Where did you get those notes—the printed blanks ! A. At the stationer's. Q. You got them yourself, did you ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. At whose request did you get those notes ? A. At the request of Mr. Huntington. Q. About how long after you went to Wall street was it that you first began to make out the body of the notes at Mr. Huntington's request ? A. I should think six weeks, or two months. Q. And how long did that service continue ? A. I do not remember the length of time. Q. About how long ? Cannot you remember it ? Was it a week, a fortnight, or a month ? A. I do not recollect the time. I do not recollect the stated^time. I cannot tell within three weeks. Q. When did you stop having the office in Wall street ? A. The first of August I think it was. Q. Why did you give up your office ? A. Because I could not find business. Q. Where did you go to then—after the first of August \ A* I went as check clerk to the " Artisans' Bank." Q. When did this $15 a week from Huntington cease ? A. When I had my month's payment from the Bank. 36 TEIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Q. Did Mr. Huntington ever give you any moneys besides that for al- A. If I asked him for it he gave it to me. Q. Did you ask for it ? A. Yes, Sir, I did ask for it. Q. How much in all have you received from Huntington since you Mt Nash's employment ? A. I do not know. Q. About how much ? Do you not remember ? A. I suppose about $300, and over. Three or four hundred dollars. It might have been $400. Mr. Brady said that he did not wish the silence that he had maintain- ed to several of the questions put to this witness to be used as an argument against him in regard to the legality of such proof. He (Mr. B.) was of opinion that he might have successfully objected to many of the questions propounded by the other side, but having in view the interest of his client at the present time he had abstained from interrupting the examination' He would, however, should occasion arise, hereafter protest against the ille- gality of many portions of the examination. Cross examined by Mr. Brady. Q. When did Mr. Huntington marry your sister ? A. I think he married her in May, 1849. Q. And at that time you were residing where? A. New London, Connecticut. Q. And you came to the city in what year \ A. I think in the year 1851. n JLf! ffUndfe!'Stand ?ou> Mr- Huntington gave you $15 a week to sup- port yourself, until you got some employment ? A Yes A No'sir*' WaS DOt the firSt time that hQ had aSsi'sted y°u? in tht cHy^ aSSiSt6d J0U bef°re that?~duriDg a11 *» time you had been ^' Sf' Sir' he gave me money Wflen I asked for it ycu 11^ y°2 ZlT^mes Nash & Co-what •»*—*» aa for myseK ""' ^"'^ °f «°inS io™ *° Wa" »*««, ««d doing business Q. Was the salary too small > A Yes 1 Ytl^tSOj or did somebody *eIse tel1 you so ? Q. Then your leaving and going to Wall street was an act of your own ! Q. To better your condition ? A. Yes n 1°a Mre^thiS °ffice UP°n y°m 0wn *cco«nt ? A. Yes a ka < HuutmitJ°? a°y thing to do with that ? A. No Sir i Fo" a'yelr.7011 ^ ^ *» *P what time did ^U *" i« Q. For a year from the first of May ? A. I hired it by the year A nhiJw h"'6 a -?T th\firSt °f Ma?' or 6n th* 10th of C , A. I think I hired it about the 10th of May. 7 ' TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 37 Q. Mr. Huntington was in no way connected with that business ? A. No. Q. You were arrested, were you not ? A. Yes. Q. By Mr. Bowyer ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You were arrested by Mr. Bowyer, perhaps, on the same day that/ you were examined ? A. No, Sir. Q. What day then ? A I think the third day after. I was examined the third day after my arrest. Q. You were examined, as appears by this paper handed to me by the District Attorney, on the 16th of October. How many days before the , 16th were you arrested? A. I think three days. I think I was arrested on the 13th. I was arrested on Monday morning. Q. In the day time or night ? A. In the day time. Q. At what place ? A. In the Artisan's Bank. Q. Had you seen Huntington that day ? A. Yes. Q. And the day before ? A. Yes. Q. And the day before that ? A. Yes. Q. Did you see him every day ? A. Yes ; I saw him every day excepting Sunday. Q. Do you mean you saw him in the street, the Bank, or where else t ! A. I saw him at his office, and in prison. Q. When did you first hear of his arrest ? A. I was there when he was arrested. Q. What day was that ? A. I do not remember the day. Q. How long was it before you were arrested ? A. Three or four days I think after his arrest. Q. You had seen him every day in the meantime ? Had you any con- versation with him at that period upon the subject of his arrest—as to these forgeries. I do not ask what it was, but only if you had any conversation. with him. A. I think I did. Q. He was at large—at liberty, was he not ? A. No, Sir. Q. Where was he ? A. In the City Prison. Q. From the day of his arrest ? A, Do you mean the first, or the second arrest ? Q. The first. A. I met him in his office after the first arrest. Q. Where was the first arrest ? A. I do not remember. Q. He was out on bail ? A. Yes. Q. Who was his bail ? A. Mr. Belden and Mr. Harbeck. Q. How long was he at large on bail ? A. Until the next afternoon. Q. I will ask you if this is your signature to this examination (handing examination of witness taken before the Magistrate.) A. Yes, Sir. [The deposition here referred to is as follows : City and County of New York, ss.—Henry H. Barry, being duly examined before the undersigned, according to law, on the annexed charge, and being informed that he was at liberty to answer or not, all or any of the questions put to him, states as follows, viz.:— Q. What is your name? A. Henry H. Barry. Q. How old are you? A. 23 years. Q. Where were you born ? A. In East Haddam, Conn. Q. Where do you live ? A. At the Barker House, Brooklyn. Q. What is your occupation ? A. Check clerk in the Artisans' Bank. 38 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Q. Have you anything to say, and if so, what, relative ,to the charge here pre- ferred against you ? A. I deny being guilty of the charge preferred against me, but in relation to the matter I make the following statement:—I am a brother-in-law of Charles B. Huntington. He married my sister. In May, 1856, I was a clerk with James Nash & Co., lumber dealers, at the foot of 18th street, East River. I left their employment on or about the 10th of May, 1856, at the request of Mr. Huntington, who said he thought I could do better in Wall street. Huntington was at that time a note broker in Wall street, No. 52. I then left, and went down into Wall street, and opened an office at the corner of Hanover and Wall streets. Mr. Huntington allowed me $15 per week to live on, for the reason that I was not doing any thing, and it was thought I could not make any thing at first. My business was to be that of a note-broker, selling notes. After I had been into Wall street a week or two, I went into Huntington's office and told him that I was tired of sitting in the office doing nothing, and asked him if he could not give me something to do. He replied by telling me to return to my office and wait, and he would send me a communica- tion, as he was then busy. Shortly afterwards, either the same day or the one fol- lowing, he sent me a letter. There are several notes or communications now here which were received by me from him, but I cannot tell which came first, as they have no date. I think in the case of the first one he brought it to me himself, and told me to go and buy some blank forms of notes; I did so, and on my return filled up the notes as he told me, I don't remember how many. From time to time I received communications from him to fill up notes. Those which are now here and exhibited to me are those which I received, and I filled up the notes referred to in those communications. To the best of my belief, all of these communications are in the handwriting of Mr. Huntington. They are now here, marked on the back, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. After I filled up the notes as directed, I delivered them to Mr. Huntington. He looked over them, and said all was right, and retained them in his possession. I identify six promissory notes here, having my initials on the back, as being filled up by me in my own handwriting. These notes I delivered to Mr. Huntington. I did not know the purpose for which they were to be used, but supposed them to be for a legitimate purpose. My first suspicions were aroused after Huntington's second arrest, by reading the accounts in the newspapers of the large amount of forged paper. To satisfy myself whether I had been engaged in filling up any of the forged paper or not, I went to Huntington's office to obtain a bundle of letters which I had left there, amongst which were the memorandums above mentioned. All my letters and papers were taken to Huntington's office when I closed my office. I did not find the papers there then, but the papers now here are those which I was in search of. This is all that I have done, and all that I know of the matter. HENRY H. BARRY. Sworn to before me, October 16, 1856. B. W. Osborne, Police Justice.] Q. Well, Sir, you took that office, and you had been there six weeks, and I suppose making no money, or very little ? A. Yes. Q. Had you made any ? A. Yes. Q. You were living upon what Huntington gave you ? A. Yes. Q. Did he ask you during that six weeks to render him any kind of ser- vice whatever ? A. None at all. Q. Did he employ you to do any thing until you went and made some communication to him about your business? A. No. Q. What did you tell him ? A. I told him I wished he would get me something to do—some business. Q. What did he say to that ? A. He said he would—he would try to. Q. And then he sent you these orders, if these be the papers ? A. Yes, Sir, I think he sent them. I received them. I supposed he sent them. Q. Now, Sir, when he sent you these orders, and came to you to fill up notes, did he give you any other instructions about the notes, or the busi- ness, except what is contained in the orders ? TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 39 A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Did he give you any instructions in this way, or to this effect ? any instructions or caution not to let anybody see those orders ? A. No. Q. Or to observe any kind of secrecy whatever in reference to what you were doing for him ? A. No. Q. If there was any thing of that kind, tell it to the Jury ? A. No. He never asked me to do it secretly. Q. Or intimated it in any way directly or indirectly ? A. He never intimated it to me. Q. You are quite certain as to that? A. Quite. Q. Did he ever ask you to deliver back to him any of those orders ? A. No, Sir. Q. Where were they at the time of his first arrest ? A. At his office. Q. When did they go to his office ? A. When I gave up my office. Q. I have forgotten the date of that. A. I think it was 1st August, 1856. It was here agreed between the Counsel that the date of Huntington's first arrest was the 9 th of October. Q. On the first of August you gave up your office? A. Yes, Sir. Q. On giving up your office what did you do with those papers ? A. I put them with the rest of my letters, tied them up and took them to Mr. Huntington's office. Q. A bundle of papers containing these letters, and your orders ? A. Yes. Q. In what part of his office ? A. I gave them to his clerk, and he put them in a little drawer. Q. What is his name ? A. Thomas. Q. What age was he? A. 15 or 16 years of age. Q. Was the drawer locked or open ? A. Open. Q. When did you next see them ? A. In Mr. Bowyer's hand at the City Hall. Q. Did you not go to look for them ? A. Yes. Q. When was that ? A. On the day of my arrest. Q. Where did you go to look for them ? A. I went first to the house of Mr. Halsey, the evening previous, and he said he would give them to me in the morning, so I then went to the office of Harbeck and Belden, and they gave me the keys of the office. Q. Whose office ? A. Huntington's office. Q. Did you go to Huntington's office ? A. Yes. Q. Did you make any search there for these papers ? A. I did. Q. Did you find them ? A. No, Sir. Q. What does this mean in your examination : " To satisfy myself whether I had been engaged in making up any of these forged papers, I went to Huntington's office to obtain the bundle of papers I left there, among which was the memorandum above mentioned. I did not find the papers there" ? A. I did not find them there then. Q. You did not find any there then ? A. No. I had them all in one bundle, which Mr. Halsey, the assignee, took possession of at Huntington's office after the arrest. Q. These papers have no dates. Can you tell in any way which one of these orders for notes was received by you first ? A. No, Sir. 40 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Q. Is there any way by which you can tell ? A. No, Sir. Q. Can you tell me which of those notes you filled up first ? A. No, Sir. Q. Have you no means of fixing that ? A. No, Sir. Q. This one is dated July 1st, 1856. Can you tell me at what date- that was filled up ? A. I suppose at the time that I filled it up. I suppose on July 1st I filled it up. Q. Who obtained you that situation in the Artisans' Bank ? A. Mr. Huntington. Q. Now, Sir, between the 1st of August, 1856, and the time of your procuring the situation in the Artisans' Bank, were you engaged in any business whatever? A. None at all. Q. When you took these orders to the office of Mr. Huntington, was it entirely your own motion, or had he in any way intimated to you a re- quest, or desire, or wish to have those papers back ? A. I do not remember his ever saying so. Q. Did you leave any particular instructions as to how they were to be taken care of? A. I told him to keep them two or three days, and I would then take them home. Q. Why did you not ? A. I forgot it. Q. Was there any other reason ? A. No other reason. The Court:—He means he requested the boy ? The Witness:—Yes, the boy Thomas. Q. Are you still in the Artisans' Bank! A. No; they obliged me to resign. Q. On account of this affair ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Now, as to that bundle in which these orders were that were left with Thomas. Did it contain any papers important to you personally, and belonging to you alone ? A. I think there were some receipted bills. Q. Relating exclusively to your personal concerns ? A. Yes. Q. Now, Sir, a little more particularly about Huntington's arrest on the 9th day of October. When did you first learn that Huntington had been eed on the 9th of October ? A. The book-keeper of the Artisan's Bank informed me. Q. About what time ? A. About half-past nine next morning. Q. When did you first see Huntington after that ? A. About eleven o'clock the same mornino-. Q. Where ? A. At his office. Q. At his usual place of business ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was he alone ? A. No, Sir. Q. Who was with him ? A. Two clerks, I think. Q. Thomas? A. Yes. Q. And who was the other ? A. Mr. Barker. Q. What is his first name ? A. I do not know his first name. Q. Mr. Bowyer was not there ? A. No. Q. Nor Harbeck, nor Belden ? A. No. Q. What was he (Huntington) engaged in at that time ? A. He was the same as usual. Q. How long did you remain with him ? TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 41 A. I remained there until his second arrest. Q. I am speaking now of the ninth of October. A. I am speaking of the tenth. Q. How long in all did you remain with him ! A. I should think two or three hours. Q. Who arrested him the second time ? A. Mr. Bowyer. A. Did any one come with Mr. Bowyer ? A. I do not remember. Q. Now, during that three hours, or whatever time it may have been, that you were in that office with Huntington on the second arrest, did you transact any business with reference to papers ? A. None at all. Q. Did you touch any papers ? A. No, Sir. Q. Examine any papers ? A. No, Sir. Q. Destroy any papers! A. No, Sir. Q. Conceal any papers ! A. No, Sir. Q. Whether your papers, including these orders, were then in that drawer or not, you have no means of certainly telling? A. No. Q. And did not look ! A. Did not look. Q. When you were arrested had you any counsel ? A. No Sir. Q. Did you not seek any ! A. Yes, I asked for counsel. Q. Of whom! A. I asked Mr. Bowyer if he would send for a lawyer, but he told me I did not want any. Q. They did not intend to hold you, but merely took your examination and discharged you ? A. Yes. Q. Had you any communication with any counsel of Huntington's about the charges against you in any way, by writing or otherwise—di- rectly or indirectly ? A. No. Q. Have you ever had, in any way ? A. No. (It was agreed between the counsel that all notes identified by this witness upon his former examination and marked, were to be used on this trial). Re-examined by Mr. Noyes. Q. Was anybody else present when you gave Thomas these papers— your private bundle of papers! A. Yes, Sir, Mr. Huntington was present, I think, and Mr. Barker I believe, was present when I gave them to his clerk Thomas. Q. Did you say any thing to Huntington about it ? A. No, Sir, I think not. Q. Or to Barker in his presence ? A. I spoke to Thomas, so that Huntington could hear me. Q. Thomas is not Barker ? A. No, Sir. Q. You spoke to Thomas so loud that Mr. Huntington could hear you ! A. Yes—in my usual tone of voice. Q. Repeat what you said at that time. A. I told him to take care of those papers until I called for them—that I would call in two or three days, and take them away when I was going home. Q. Was that all ? A. That was all. Q. What was Huntington doing then ? A. In the office ? A. Yes, when you made this remark to Thomas. 42 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. A. I do not remember—writing I presume. Q. How large was the packet of papers you gave to Thomas ? A. Four or five inches square. Q. Did you notice where he put them ? A. Yes. Q. In whose desk ? A. In his own desk. Q. How far was that from Huntington's desk! A. Ten or fifteen feet; ten I should think. Q. Upon the same side, or the opposite side of the office ? A. Upon the east side of the office. Mr. Huntington's was, I think, upon the west side. Q. It was upon the opposite side of the office from which Huntington's desk was? A. Yes. The Court: Whose desk was opposite Huntington's ? Mr. Noyes: The boy Thomas's. Q. Did you ever speak to Thomas about the papers afterwards ? A. No, Sir. Q. Or to Huntington ? A. No, Sir, it had escaped my memory. Q. And during the time they remained there, you never wanted them ? A. No, Sir. William E. Dodge called and sworn. Examined by Mr. Noyes. Q. How long have you been a member of the firm of Phelps, Dodga and Co. ? A. Twenty-two years. Q. That firm then has been in existence during that time ? A. Yes. Q. Will you state of whom the firm consisted in June and July 1856! A. Anson G. Phelps, William E. Dodge, Daniel James, James Stokes, William E. Dodge Jun., and D. W. James. Q. Will you state where those members of the firm resided ? A. All resided here excepting Mr. James, who resided at Liverpool in England. Q. Are you familiar, Sir, with the handwriting of all the members of the firm ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. From having seen them write ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Look at that note (the one set forth in the indictment and marked B) and say whether the signature is in the handwriting of any member of the firm ? A. No, Sir. Q. Will you state, Sir, whether the signature is an imitation of the handwriting of any member of your firm ? A. Yes. Q. Which one ? A. Mr. Stokes. Q. Is it successful or otherwise ? A. No, it is rather poor. Q. Has your firm any transactions with the Minnesota Mining Co. ? A. Yes. Q. What relation did you hold with them ? A. We purchased copper from them very largely, and manufactured it. Q. Do you know whether the firm has ever given any notes on account of copper purchased from that Company? A. Yes, Sir, a large number. Q. State whether the notes which you have given contain any thino- special in regard to the Company ? A. I think they have always been drawn to the order of the Minnesota Mining Co. Sometimes when drawn otherwise, it is stated—" Copper pur- chased from the Minnesota Mining Company." TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 43 Q. They were all for value received ? A. Yes. Q. Was the signature to this note ever authorized by yourself, or by any member of the firm to your knowledge ? A. No, Sir. Q. Was it given, or made, to your knowledge, in any transaction with your firm ? A. Never. Q. When did you first become aware of its existence ? (handing note to witness, who examined it.) A. I think it was on either the 10th or 11th of October. My initials are upon the back of it. Q. You first heard of it when ? A. At the examination of Huntington. Q. Is there any other firm of Phelps, Dodge & Co., to your knowledge ? A. I never heard of any. Q. Did you know the prisoner at the bar before his arrest? A. I saw him the day before his arrest, the first time I ever saw him to my knowledge. Q. Has your firm ever had any transactions with him ? A. Never. Q. Ever given him notes to dispose of, as a broker or otherwise ? A. Never. Q. You have never given him any note personally of your firm ? A. Never. Q. You never saw him at all, I understand you, until the day of his arrest ? A. Not until then, at Mr. Belden's office. Q. And you do not know that the firm ever had any transactions with him of any character ? A. I do not know that they ever had. Cross-examined by Mr Brady. Q. Look at the endorsement upon that note (handing him note marked B). A. Yes, Sir, what of that ? Q. What do you say about it ? Is it a forgery ? A. I say it is a forgery, Sir. Q. Was that upon the note when you first saw it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Is that an imitation of any one's handwriting ? A. Yes, Sir, the same as the other. It is not quite as well done. Q. In either of those signatures, do you observe anything that would deceive a person in the least acquainted with Stokes' handwriting ? A. The word " Phelps," is written very similar to Mr. Stokes' style.— The word " Dodge" is not written so large or so full as he writes it, but the general character is like Mr. Stokes' handwriting. Q. A person acquainted with the mode in which Mr. Stokes wrote the name of that firm would, in your judgment, be likely to be deceived ? A. That would depend upon how much acquaintance he had with it. If presented to any person in our office, they would say at once that it was a forgery. Q. Did your concern at any time use any such blank as that ? (handing note marked B) A. No, Sir, allow me to see it again. (Witness further examining it.) Our blanks are very similar, excepting that our name is printed on the end of the note in our own. Q. There is no name upon that ? A. No. Q. You have not now in your possession one of your notes ? A. I have not. 44 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Q. Was it the same color as yours ? A. I should think it was. I think our notes are of rather a deeper blue tinge. Q. When did your transactions with this Mining Company begin ? A. I cannot tell exactly. I should think we have purchased of them for the last two or three years. Q. Were the notes in your business, and particularly if there is any dis- tinction with the Mining Company's, filled up by any particular clerk in your office ? A. We have two clerks who alternately do it, as it may bemost con- venient. Q. Are those gentlemen still in your employ ? A. They are. Q. And performed that duty during the whole of the year 1856 ? A. Yes. There are occasionally notes issued, and filled up by the firm when more convenient, but as a general thing, the book-keeper filled them up. Q. Does the body of that note in any degree or respect resemble the handwriting of either of those clerks, or any member of the firm ? A. It is not quite as well written as our book-keeper writes. I do not think it does resemble it very much. Q. How long has Mr. Stokes been a member of the firm ! A. I think about fifteen years, Sir. Either ten or fifteen ; I really for- get which. J Q. And during all that time he has resides in this city, has he not, A. Yes, Sir, except in the summer, and then he resides in the country Q. Do you know Mr. Harbeck ? ^. I have no personal acquaintance with him. I know him by reputa- tion and when I see him. Q. Does Mr. Stokes know him ? A. I cannot tell you, Sir. Q. It was asserted by the District Attorney, in opening this case, that your firm might have been injured in consequence of your having a lanre quantity of papers out. & & A. We almost always do a large business. Q. Is your paper in Wall street, occasionally ? A. Yes, I presume it is. Q. Was there any particular place in Wall street, or any particular dealer, in whose hands there was usually any large amount of your paper ? A. I do not know, Sir. i v v Q. Say G. S. Robbins & Co. ? hinRl flihiiDk itSyuth,ere,wa8 m0re there tnan adhere else, for Rob- bins is the largest bill-broker's in the city. mwl'v?^' Z belieVe'.is,tLe place where Mr' Robbins has uP°n hand fre- quently ^large^ amount of paper, and persons go there and look at it? office^^^ ><» «7 *« ^ at Mr. Belden's Tt \^hlt Mr"? u°"l /ha- I.Vm his first name- He sits ^re in court. It is thatMr. Belden ? (pointing to Charles Belden). Q. Where was that, Sir? A. It was in Wall street. V. How near to Huntington's office ? A. I should say six or eight doors below. TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 45 Q. Mr. Harbeck's office was upon the same floor with Belden's! A. Yes. Q. Did that form part of one suite of offices ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you go there alone ? A. Yes. Q. What time of day was it ? A. I should think about half-past three o'clock on the 8th day of October, Q. Why did you go there ? A. On returning from Wall street my cashier stated to me, that a note had been sent up there for payment from Mr. Belden's office, which was a forgery. Q. Did the note fall due that day ? A. I think it fell due several days before. It was past due when it was sent up. It was on that note for $6,500 that he was first arrested. [The note here referred to is as follows, the written portions being in italics. $6,500, New York, July 1, 1856. Three months after date we promise to pay to the order of ourselves, sixty Jive- hundred dollars, at the Bank of Commerce, value received of Minnesota Mining Co. No.--- Due Oct. 1—4. PHELPS, DODGE & GO. (Endorsed) Phelps, Dodge & Co.] Q. When you went to Mr. Belden's in consequence of being told that a note had been sent to your office, from Mr. Belden's for $6,500, which was a forgery, you looked at the note. Did you look at any other note ? A. Yes, Sir. I cannot identify the other note. Q. But you looked at another note ? A. I did, Sir. It was for about the same amount. Q. Was that a note purporting to be made by your firm ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Had you a conversation with Mr. Belden about that matter ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Was Mr. Huntington present when you had that conversation with Belden ? A. Not when it commenced. Before we got through he was there. Q. Did he come there casually, of his own accord, or was he sent for ? A. I suppose he was sent for. Q. How far from Mr. Harbeck's office was his ? A. I just mentioned, I thought six or eight doors above. Q. When Huntington came there, did he and Mr. Belden have any conversation privately between themselves, which you did not hear ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you go from the place, leaving Mr. Huntington and Mr. Belden there, or did either leave before you did ? A. I left them there. Q. You did not see Mr. Harbeck there! A. I do not think I did, Sir, then. Q. Now, Sir, you looked at two notes, as I understood it. A. Yes, Sir. I marked all I gave affidavits to, at the Tombs. Q. In whose possession were the two notes you saw that day ? A. Mr. Belden's. This note that I held in my hand a moment ago, due October 1—4, was the one handed to me by Mr. Belden at the time,— not the one in the indictment on trial. 46 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Q. Do you identify the note in the indictment ? A. I identify that as one presented at the Tombs, when Mr. Hunting- ton was examined ; there I saw it, and put my name on the back of it. Q. Those two notes you saw in the possession of Belden ;—in whose possession were they when you left Huntington and Belden together? A. Mr. Belden had them, Sir. Q Did you see those two notes the next day ? A. I did, Sir. Q. In whose possession were they then ? A. In the possession of Mr. Huntington, and then in the possession of Mr. Belden—first in the possession of Mr. Huntington. Q. At what place? A. At Mr. Belden's office. Q. Huntington had those two marked notes in his hat ? A. He had them in his hat, Sir, Q. Was his hat on his head, or on the tahle? A. The facts were these : on asking Mr. Belden for the notes, and turn- ing to the desk, I saw Mr. Belden step from me to Mr. Huntington, and saw Mr. Huntington turn round, take off his hat, take out those two notes, and hand them to Mr. Belden, and Mr. Belden handed them to me. Q. You made copies of them at the time? A. I did, Sir. Q. And after you had made copies of them, to whom did you return them? A. To Mr. Belden. Q. In the presence of Huntington ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. While you were making copies of those two notes, was Huntington engaged with Belden in conversation ? A. They were both standing close together behind the iron railing. Q. Had you seen Mr. Bowyer before this ? A. I had, Sir, on that day. Q. Had Huntington been arrested before this ? A. No, Sir. Q. How soon, after taking copies of the notes, was he arrested ? A. I should think about an hour, Sir. Wm. E. Dodge, Jr., called. Examined by Mr. Noyes: Q. Were you a member of the firm of Phelps, Dodge & Co., in June and July last ? A. I was, Sir. Q. How long ? A. I was three years on the first of January. Q. Are you acquainted with the handwriting of all the members of that firm? A. I am, Sir. Q. Look at that note (marked B) and say whether it is the signature of any member of that firm ? A. It is not, Sir. Q. Was that signature authorized by you, or any other member of the firm, to your knowledge ? A. It was not, Sir. Q. Is it an attempt to imitate the signature of the firm ? A. I should judge it to be so, Sir. Q. When did you first see it, or know of its existence ? A. I have never seen the notes before, Sir, to my knowledge. Cross-examined by Mr. Brady. Q. Is that signature a close resemblance, or a poor imitation, of Mr. Stokes' writing of the firm's name ? A. The general resemblance is good, but not a close imitation. Q. A moment's glance would show you it was a forgery ? A. It would show me. TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 47 Q. What do you say in reference to the signature of that other note (due October 4) as to its being a close or poor imitation ? A. The imitation is a poor one, Sir, not calculated to deceive those ac- quainted with the signature of the firm. Q. Poorer than the last ? A. I should think about the same thing; perhaps a trifle better. The " P" is like Mr. Stokes', somewhat. Anson G. Phelps, examined by Mr. Noyes. Q. You are a member of the firm of Phelps, Dodge • W : . C- w : c . ■ -t D ' ens • t- o ' o . r... No- New York, Sept. 9, 1856. BANK OF REPUBLIC, Pay to the order of Harbeck _ Co. twenty-one thousand dollars. $21000. CHS. B. HUNTINGTON. No endorsement.] TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 49 Q. State what you know about them. __. They were given to me by Mr. Harbeck. Q. At the time he gave you those notes ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Did you see from whom he got those other two checks ? A. I did not, Sir. Q. All you know is that he gave you those five notes and those two checks. What did you then do ? A. I inclosed them in an envelope immediately after I gave the check to Huntington. Q. Did you draw the check before or after Harbeck gave you the notes ? A. Previous. I gave the check to Huntington and then received the note. Q. Whose memorandum is that on the envelope ? A. My own. Q, Made when ? A. I cannot say when. Some time afterwards. Q. What is that memorandumrintended for ? A. It mentions that those were collaterals for a loan made on the 6th of September to------ Mr. Brady objected to the witness designating the transaction from any thing he was told. Q. Do you know whether that check you drew has been paid ? A. It has, Sir. Q. It has the bank mark on it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Are those the notes upon the security of which that loan was made Mr. Brady objected. Q. Do you know from what occurred, whether the check was made on those notes? A. I know that the loan was made on those two checks, and the notes, as collaterals. Cross-examined by Mr. Brady. Q. If I understand you correctly, you did not hear one word of the conversation between Mr. Huntington and Mr. Harbeck about this money ? A. I did not, Sir. Q. And whether Mr. Harbeck was paying a debt he owed to Mr. Hun- tington, or not, you do not know of your own knowledge ? A. No, Sir. Q. You could not say if he had borrowed it the day before, in the street ? A. No, Sir, not in that case. Q. How then do you know that this was a check given on those notes as collateral security ? A. I know it by representations made by Mr. Harbeck. Q. And in that way alone ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. You do not know anything about the terms or conditions of that loan to Mr. Huntington, if it were one ? A. No, Sir. Wm. H. Harbeck sworn. Examined by Mr. Noyes. Q. How long had you known Huntington prior to September last ? A. About eleven months. Q. You are a member of the firm of Harbeck & Co. of No. 60 Wall street? A. Yes,Sir. Q. State whether he applied to you for any money on the 16th of Sep- tember last? A. He did, Sir, for $21,000. Q. On what security ? 4 50 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. A. On this check of Hoffman notes pledged as collaterals for the loan. Q. And that is all ? A. That is all. Q. Was that book got expressly to show your transactions with Hunt- ington ? A. Mr. Stoughtenberg got it. You might call it that. Q. Was it a book in which it was your intention to have no transac- tions entered except those with Huntington ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. And is it the fact that no other transactions but those were entered in it ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How many pages were written on, when it was destroyed ? A. I cannot say. Q. Was it a blank book like this ? (showing one.) A. I do not think it was as thick as that. Q. Did any one know of your destroying it, except yourself ? 54 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. A. Yes, Sir; Mr. Halsey, and Mr. Stoughtenberg. It was burned up in the presence of Halsey & Stoughtenberg, I think. Mr. Halsey was present. Q. Was the object of burning it communicated to them \ A. I think so, Sir. Q. How were you compensated for the loans you gave to Huntington ? 1 take it for granted now that you gave those loans to make money. A. They are not paid. Q. What were you to get ? A. Seven per cent, per annum. Q. And nothing more? A. Nothing more, (sensation.) The District Attorney : It is my duty, at this stage of the examination, to object to a further consumption of time in showing the specialities or details of prior transactions between Mr. Harbeck and Mr. Huntington. We suppose we have a right to confine this inquiry to the res gestce of the case. We prove a specific uttering of forged paper by the defendant on the 6th of September, and we have a right to object to any evidence of previous transactions with the witness, as irrelevant. Mr. Brady: So far as the learned District Attorney expresses a wish to economize time, of course I concur with him to the extent that, however serious or important an investigation may be, no more time should be as- signed to it than is necessary for the development of the truth ; but he will agree with me that no less time is adequate than what is due to the attain- ment of those ends. The importance of this case has not been exaggerated by him in his opening, and no one but my client can estimate how import- ant it is to him that the whole of these transactions should be brought to light. I never put a question without having a definite purpose ; and as I differ from the learned District Attorney on several propositions of law, it is necessary to advert to one or two, to show the relevancy of the testimo- ny I now offer. My learned friend has stated in his opening that in a cer- tain contingency, the jury will become mere puppets or automatons in the hands of the law : that is, that if certain facts or circumstances were devel- oped in the case, the law would step in, and decide that the jury had nothing to do. I take issue on that proposition, generally and in detail;. and I now claim that as to questions of fact the jury alone is to respond, and that your Honor has no right to express an opinion upon any of them. A great question in one branch of this case is, whether, if Mr. Huntington did utter this alleged forged paper, within the meaning of the law, there was any intention on his part to defraud Mr. Harbeck, or any other person, as charged in the indictment. That is exclusively a question of fact for the jury; and however lawyers may speculate, and whatever your honor may declare to be the legal presumption, that is a question, which so far as my hum- ble abilities can prevent, no power on earth shall take from them. I say this because I am perfectly aware that it is stated in some elementary treatises, that, certain facts appearing, the law will infer certain things, as for exam- ple, if a man having forged paper in his possession, take it to another per- son, knowing it to be forged, and gets property on it, he shall not be al- lowed to say he did not intend to defraud. That is a position which I shall combat. I say that if twenty millions of dollars had been obtained on forged paper, and the party knew it to be forged, that is not enough to com- pel the jury to determine that he intended to defraud any one. Now if the learned gentleman wants this jury to infer the intent of Huntington to defraud from the fact that he did defraud, am I to be prevented from going TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 55 into all the transactions to prove, it may be, that he never owed Harbeck a cent in the world ? How does my learned friend know ? They call the witness to prove that he lent $21,000 to Huntington on the 6th Septem- ber, upon those notes as security. Am I to leave the case in that condition —to let it appear that this man has been defrauded of $21,000, and have the jury infer from that that Huntington intended to defraud him ? Can I be shut out from all the surrounding circumstances, to show the character- istics of the case ? The learned gentleman says I am not to go back of this period. I propose to show that all those loans and transactions hinged and depended upon each other, so as to form one continuous dealing, the result of which is to show whether Mr. Harbeck was defrauded or not, or whether Huntington intended to defraud him. We have the singular fact in evi- dence, that on the 12th of October, immediately succeeding the arrest of Huntington, the witness destroyed a piece of evidence of immense conse- quence and value to himself and to Mr. Huntington, relating to the transac- tions between them. Whether it related to the transaction of September or not, we cannot ascertain, and I should like to know if I have not a right, when the witness confesses that he destroyed a certain piece of evidence, which might be of value to the person on trial, to submit to the jury evidence which may show the true character of the transaction? The law imputes to a man who destroys a piece of evidence, an improper motive. Mr. Harbeck gives his explanation, and that can go to the jury, but we do not know what the jury may think of this matter. I am testing the witness's memory, and examining him with a view to show, in point of fact, whether or not he was defrauded; for I hope to make it appear as clear as the brightest ray of sunshine that has illuminated this room, that there never was the slightest intention on the part of Mr. Huntington to defraud any man, and in preventing me from showing all the circumstances, I think the learned gentleman is shutting out the light. I claim that the transactions between Mr. Harbeck and Mr. Huntington are open to my investigation, to overthrow the conclusion sought to be established by the prosecution, that a fraud was perpetrated on Mr. Harbeck. Your Honor will remember the way in which the question arises. It is this: I have been permitted to ask him about the nature and character of the loans, generally, about their amounts, whether he had securities for the previous loans, and what became of them ; and now I have got down to the point, what was the compensa- tion and mode of compensation he obtained on those loans ? Is not that pretty essential ? Suppose it turned out that these securities were de- posited, not for a loan of $21,000, and not intended to be collateral security for anything: suppose they were nothing but forms and shadows, and so understood between the parties: suppose that Huntington and Harbeck had a perfect understanding with each other as to the mode of carrying on business, where they would stand in the relation of principals to third par- ties : I claim the right to cross-examine the witness to support any theory contrary to that of the prosecution. I want to find out whether there was any fraud, and we will consider before the jury whether the allegation that Mr. Huntington intended to defraud Mr. Harbeck is sustained by the proof, or not. The District Attorney: I will come back directly to the question start- ed from—what is the relevancy of the evidence now sought to be obtained 56 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. from Mr. Harbeck. We have proved by him that on a certain day he gave his check to Mr. Huntington for $21,000, which money passed into Mr. Huntington's coffers; that he received certain notes and checks as collat- eral security ; and we have presumptive v roof that they are forgeries. V\e have allowed evidence to show that there was a large financial business established between Mr. Harbeck and Mr. Huntington ; and that works in our favor to this extent, that it proves Mr. Huntington had established a confidence with Mr. Harbeck down to a certain point where he could de- fraud Mr. Harbeck by a skillfully planned forgery. The charge is, that Mr. Huntington intended to defraud Mr. Harbeck in the transaction of the 6th of September. Now, no matter how other matters stood on that day— whether Mr. Huntington was owed by Mr. Harbeck a million of dollars, or not,—here is an entirely isolated and independent transaction, to which the intent to defraud relates; and the moment the jury come to contem- plate other transactions, there is danger of confusing their mind with irrel- evant matter. My learned friend says that the witness has destroyed certain evidence connected with the transactions between him and Huntington. We deny that that book could be evidence in this case. It was the most natural thing in the world that Mr. Harbeck should destroy that book. It was one of those disagreeable remembrances of confidence betrayed, of folly, one of those skeletons that every man desires to be rid of. But this whole transaction appears unclouded by any collateral matter, so far as the prosecution is concerned; and if we are to go into other transactions, there is no knowing how long a time we are to spend here. The Court: The defendant is indicted for forging a particular note, in a particular transaction. Now the counsel for the prisoner desires to go back of that transaction, into other transactions, which existed before be- tween these parties. I am unable to see how the state of business between those parties before this thing took place can have an effect in any way on the merits of this issue. I cannot see that this testimony can be used legitimately, except to test the credibility of the witness; then I can under- stand the rule to be that you may go into irrelevant testimony for that purpose. I do not want to shut out any testimony that I can see has a legitimate bearing, no matter how distant, on the issue ; but I am unable to see how this can have any. Suppose it true that the defendant had loaned the witness money, and had been charged exorbitant interest, I can- not see how that can have any bearing on the question whether the defen- dant forged this particular paper. At this time I do not want to say what I think as to the question of actual damage to be sustained to prove the intent to defraud. That is not necessary. Suppose it necessary to prove, that in consequence of this particular forgery, the party had been damaged, it would be a damage resulting from this transaction, and not from former transactions. I think I am bound to shut it out. Mr. Brady: The question I put is this : What was the compensation agreed to be paid by Huntington to you for the loans which you made to him, as you have stated, prior to Septem- ber 6th, 1850? Now I wish to say to your Honor, to prevent any misunderstanding, that I understand the District Attorney to contend that the intent to defraud would be conclusively established when the actual defrauding was proved, and that it will not answer for a person who did defraud another, to say TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 57 that he did not intend to do it. I differ from him entirely, and will show that although you may in law infer an intent from a certain state of things, the Jury are not bound to draw any conclusion from any state of facts. That is an atrocious error. The Court: There is this about it, that whether the jury have the right or not, if they do so we have no remedy. District Attorney: The learned gentleman misunderstands me in think- ing I hold that, if a man is defrauded, that is evidence that the party inten- ded to defraud. I merely say it is presumptive. There must be an intent to defraud shown, but we differ as to the extent. While, to show that a man intended to defraud, it is immaterial whether there was an actual de- frauding or not, the fact of actual defrauding goes far to show the intent. Mr. Brady : I say that the jury are not bound to any conclusion from any state of facts. I wish this offer to be narrowed down to the specific question. My learned friend objects to our showing the rate of compensa- tion agreed on between Harbeck and the defendant, for loans made the lat- ter previous to the 6th of September; and your Honor excludes that proof. The Court: I feel that I must. Mr. Brady: Very well, Sir, we take exception. The usual hour for adjournment having arrived, the Court, after adminis- tering to the jury the caution of yesterday, adjourned to 10 o'clock, on Thursday morning. Thursday, Dec. 18, 1856.*—William H. Harbeck's cross-examination continued by Mr. Brady. * " The trial of Huntington was resumed to-day before a small public audience. The smallness of the attendance was attributable in some measure to the stern refusal on the part of the officers at the door to give admission to mere quid-nuncs, but chiefly to the fact that there were very few quid-nuncs at the door to trouble them. The weather, in the first place, was too cold; and in the next place the Huntington affair, which, at the best, must pale its ineffectual fires before the revelations of Dr. Thrasher Lyons' more recent adventures, is now rather passe. Everybody knows everything about it that anybody wants to know anything about. Hence the collapse in public curiosity as to the trial. The proceedings to-day, how- ever, had an interest per se."—Extract from The N. Y. Daily Times of Dec. 19. " The Huntington Trial.—If carelessness and confidence be synonymous terms, then certainly it would seem that the money-dealing fraternity of Wall-street must be the most confiding class of this entire Christian community. The evidence elicited at the trial of Huntington, yesterday, exhibits, on the face of it, a mode of doing business which, if universal, stamps Wall-street either as an Arcadia of inno- cence and simplicity, or a phalanstery of careless capitalists. Mr. Huntington seems to have carried on his most gigantic operations by a series of coups de main. "Here," he says to a broker, "lend me twenty or thirty thousand dollars on my note at three days, and these checks, amounting to thirty thousand dollars, as collateral security." He thrusts into the broker's hand his note, and half a dozen checks on well-known houses—all of these checks being filled up in the same handwriting and on the same printed forms, and the signatures such palpable forgeries as to bear little or no resemblance to the originals—and yet, will it be believed, the money is lent without a shadow of hesitation! The full report of the testimony given on Huntington's trial yesterday, which is published elsewhere in the Times of to-day, cannot fail to arrest public attention, if not excite public astonishment."—From the same: an Editorial. "Trial of Huntington, the Wall-street Man.—One of our criminal courts is occupied at the present time in the trial of that distinguished operator, Charles B. Huntington, and the case is exciting all the interest that is due to the fame of the 58 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Q. On the 6th of September, when you say this loan of $21,000 was made, was Huntington in good credit with you ?—A. Yes. Q. Had he established a credit with you ? Had he any ? A. I would loan him money on securities. Q. Well, had he so far gained a credit that you would have loaned him any money without securities ?—A. No, Sir. _ > #. Had your brother and you separate and distinct business attairs i A. We had some. Q. Some ? A. Some, Sir. @. How was it as to these loans of money ? Witness .-These loans of $21,000 ? Mr. Brady : Yes. Witness : That belongs to Harbeck & Co. #. The firm composed of you and your brother ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Are you sure it was on the 6th of September that that loan was made ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Can you now remember whether you had at that time in your Witness : Any what ? hands any securities of any kind which Huntington had deposited with you ? Mr. Brady : Any securities. Witness : For other loans ? Mr. Brady: Yes. Witness : Yes, Sir; I had other securities for other loans. Q. How long had your firm been in the habit of lending money on papers in Wall street ? A. We never did a great deal before the year 18— Q. Well, how much ? A. I could not tell you. We never did much before the year 1856. Q. You know there was such a firm in New York as Phelps, Dodge &Co.? A. Yes, Sir. Q. How long have you known that firm ? A. A number of years. Q. Where is their place of business ? A. I cannot say properly where their place of business is. Q. Have you ever seen their paper in Wall street ? A. I have from Mr Huntington. Q. Of no others ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you ever receive it except from Huntington in course of busi- ness ? A. Not to my knowledge. man and the notoriety of his exploits. It is not becoming that we should say any thing at this time which could influence the judge or the jury, but, when we recollect the escape of Schuyler, and the secret efforts which were made to prevent his recapture and return, the abortive attempt recently made to administer justice to a man who openly killed a fellow creature in a bar-room, the hundred and fifty to two hundred indictments against the faro establishments, and the two thousand indictments against offenders of various grades, which lie on the calendar covered up with the dust of years, there seems very little improbability of the public deciding erroneously in this case. Huntington is charged with forgery. But he was also well known as a distinguished bull operator, and he is ending his career as many other bull operators have done, both here and elsewhere."—From the New York Herald, Dec. 19 : Editorial extract. TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. 59 Q. Either for a loan or in payment of any thing ? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Did you know of any such firm as Hoffman & Leonard ? A. I understood there was such a firm. Q. When did you first understand there was such a firm ? A. About that time. Q. And understood it of whom ? A. From the check which was given me by Mr. Huntington. Q. Did you understand it in any other way ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did you know what their business was at that time ? A. I understood they were lawyers. Q. You understood so then ? A. Since then I understood they were lawyers. Q. Did you understand so then ? A. No, Sir. Q. You did not know; then you were not informed what their business was ? A. No, Sir. Q. Is there any such firm now ? A. I understand the firm now is Leonard and Hoffman. Q. Was it ever otherwise to your knowledge ? A. I cannot say. Q. Do you know where their office was at that time ? A. No, Sir. Q. Don't you know now ? A. I believe it is right across the way from our office. Q. Don't you know it was ? A. I cannot say; I don't think I did. Q. Could you not in looking out of your office, see their sign ? A. Yes, if I went across the way I could see their sign. Q. What is their sign ? A. I never took notice of it. Q. Don't you know now ? A. I have been informed that it is Leonard and Hoffman now, instead of Hoffman and Leonard; I don't know from any actual observation, that that is the firm's name, and always has been so. Q. This check is : New York, Sept. 5tb, 1856. " Mechanics' Banking Association, pay to (---) " or bearer, Twenty-one Thou- sand Dollars. $21,000 " HOFFMAN & LEONARD." That is dated Sept. 5th; is not that the date the loan was made ? A. No, Sir. Q. Now, this is the piece of paper on which the loan was first asked ? Witness: Let me see it, and I will tell you. Mr. Brady: That—(the paper handed to witness)—is what I have read. Witness: Yes, Sir. Q. On that the loan was asked ? A. No. Q. Well, on what was it asked ? A. On that and other notes. Q. The other notes that have been exhibited here to you by Mr. Noyes? A. Yes, Sir; those were the notes. (Mr. Brady read the titles of the notes, and proceeded.) Q. Did you know at any time, any such person as Knapp ? A. Not personally. Q. Did you know what his business was ? __. I understood he was an importer. Q. Where ? A. In Broad Street. 60 TRIAL OF HUNTINGTON. Q. Who told you ? A. Mr. Huntington. Q. Is that all you know about it ? A. Mr. Belden, I think, informed me that Peter G. Knapp was good. Q. Peter G. ? A. Peter K. Knapp was good. Q. When did Mr. Belden inform you of that ? A. Sometime before that. Q. Had you had any dealings with Mr. Knapp ? A. No, Sir. Q. Did not know his handwriting ? A. No, Sir. Q. Bliss, Briggs, & Douglas; did you know them ? Witness : Do I know them ? Counsel: Yes. Witness.—I understood they were dry goods merchants. Q. From whom? A. From Mr. Huntington. Q. At that time ? A. No, before that. Q. Did you know their handwriting ? _4. No, Sir. Q. Where did you understand their place of business to be ? A. I cannot say. Q. Well, it was in the city ? A. Yes, Sir. Q. Thomas N. Dale & Co.; what did you know about that firm ? A. Well, I understood they were good. Q. What did you understand to be their business ? Q. I understood their business (witness hesitates) was " sheetings." Q. What ? A. Was importers or " sheetings;" I am not sure which. Q. In what place ? A. In New York. A. Did you know any of the firm ? A. No, Sir. Q. J. W. Kingsley; what do you know about him? Did you know him ? A. No, Sir. Q. Do you know where his place of business was ? A. No, Sir. Q. That note was for $7,500, and was one of the collaterals you too al- though you did not know the man ? A. That is an acceptance I believe, it is a draft on Graydon, Swanwick