STATE vs. HAUPTMANN
January 8, 1935
 JAMES J. O'BRIEN, sworn as a witness in behalf of the State:
Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. Mr. O'Brien, you are also a taxi driver in New York? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And particularly in that part of New York which makes up The Bronx? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in March of 1932 that was your means of livelihood? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you know Mr. Joseph Perrone, the young man who was just on the stand? A. I do.
Q. Sometime in March, 1932, did you see him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he exhibit any paper to you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what was the address and name on the paper?
Mr. Pope: I object to the question, sir; whatever took place between the taxicab driver and this gentleman was not in the presence of the man who gave the taxicab driver the envelope, and if that happened to have been the defendant in this case, of course, it was not in the presence of the defendant, and anything that was said or done at that time between two strangers is not evidence against this defendant.
The Court: Well, the question does not seem to relate to any conversation.
Mr. Pope: No, but-
The Court: But it is part of a transaction  and if the Attorney General desires to put it in, he may do it.
Mr. Pope: But, it relates to a physical fact. The Court: Yes, it relates to a physical fact.
A. He held a letter in his hand showing me that, Dr. John F. Condon, 2974 Decatur Avenue, Bronx.
Q. And where were you at the time? A. At a hack stand.
Q. And where was he? A. In his cab.
Q. Did he leave the cab? A. No, sir.
Q. What were the circumstances under which this incident occurred? A. He was driving down Jerome Avenue and I was on a hack stand at Mosholu and Jerome Avenue. He saw me standing there and he called me over to this cab. He said that was a—
Mr. Reilly: I object.
Mr. Wilentz: Never mind what he said.
The Court: Not what he said.
Q. But, at any rate, as a result of that, you happened to walk over? A. I walked over to his cab.
Mr. Wilentz: That is all, thank you, sir.