The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-11-30

Court OF Common Pleas.
u Il L. Ill.

Before Judge Daily.
Nov. 49, Lunch Welsh-The Jury in this case
dered verdict for plaintiff six cents damages and six
cents costs.
alfred Crommelin u.s. Jacob Laforge- Islander Mary
Rogers-This action Of SANDER which created
sensation from the character Of the offence charged
The opened by Mr.. Brady yesterday, but
Der Of Witnesses were subrmnaed Aier the Jury had
sworn to their names the following was the first witness
called to the stand.
GEORGE w. BRucE, s,eo,n, eraminsd By Mr.. Brady
reside in this city Street Inspector Of the Second
District and hold aPponnsmeat since MAY was pre-
brought against Mr. Laforge, by the Corporation
Mr.. sammons was attorney for the Corporation under
stood Laorge that occasion, to say that Crommeln
who in Court at the time. the that murdered
Mary Rogers and that he was also taken up for having
stolen clotAing there about thirteen
teen persons present at the time Judge called him
order, and he Q.aiorge) repeated il second time
Cross-examinei BY Mr.. Wmsos-I was standing about
three feet from him at the time Crommelin was about
seven feet from Laorge at the time Mr. Summons stood
near me at the time there were others also present
that he said that's the man that murdered Mary
Rogers pointing to Crommelin he also said that's the
man that was arrested suspicion OF having murdered
Charging The psnta with having stolen clothing the
first charge made in relation to the murder OF Mary
Rogers and the second in relation to the clothing
witness against him on that occasion suit
brought against Latorge for nuisance my recollection
has always been distinct as to Laoges having charged
Crommelin with having committed the murder was
called upon time afterwards about six weeks ago.
by MIR. Crommelin, who asked me recollected what
Laorge had said in Court told him did recolect; Mr.
Crommelin was examined as witness on that occasion
against Lafoge; am street Inspector; Latorge Is
truckman.
JAMES r. GrDSEY, examined by Dir. Brady am
Inspector; present at the trial in July heard
Laforge say that Crommelin had murdered Mary c. Ro
gers; heard him say that there trunk stolen
and that Crommelin had stolen it, he added also that
occasion that Crommelin had been arrested for it.
sorss a be ~ heard nstecy plain what KS sad
at the me he said that in regard TO the murder Of Mary
Rogers that Crommen had been engaged in il
cessory as understood him says he did not actually
the word accessory, but that was the meaning
understood from what he had uttered at the tme do
recoect the exact Words but distinctly recolect the
meaning the time according the impression produc-
ed upon my mind at the time.
Mr.. wlLsosI wish to ask this witness if there
not suspicion abroad MIR. Crommelin's being
cerned in the murder of Mary Rogersl
Mr.. BRADY objected.
| ADoLrH NoLrnnrEYKR-I know the defendant; ! saw
him in Broome street. opposite MIR Crommelins house
25th July; heard him say 10 his Q.aiorge) wife,
Mr.. WILSON, object to this testimony
Mr.. BRADyI submit entitled to its admission
MIR. WILsoN-N is not charged in the declaration.
MIR. BRApY-Though not expressly charged, 1t shows
the aus and must be considered part Of the gea
old clothes ]" was in his office at the time know Mr.
Crommeln very well he is not married boarded with
him for about months he boarded also with Mrs. no.
gers the mother OF Many Rogers there is bed in his
office the house he resided in is two story house
Direct resumed to Mr. BnADYHe kept houses and had
Thomas NASH examined by Mr.. BRApY--I live at the
corner of Allen and Delaney streets remember the time
Of the suit have heard Mr. Latorge talk about the af
fair in court he also received letter from Crommeln
concerning what he had said in court. and showed
the letter Laforge said he could what he sad he
men who saw 1t in the papers he also said he could
about the stolen Clothes that he wanted TO give
the judge insight into his character was his man. in
his employment at the time there by at the
time he said he indicated in Mary Rogers murder
Mr.. Wrsos-Was II Indicated or implicated
WITNEs,-l understood IL indicated oars OF laugh
Mr.. Wmsos-What did you understand by indicated
WIrrEss THAT he had his hand in the MURDER
(Laughter) am not learned other folks to be
sure, but know what mean
Mr. w.s0s. y. Is did he say his exact wordsa
papers and two that he told in Court that
Crommeln had also taken trunk, and the Judge hushcd
him up (Laughter Laforge and my self do not speak
We had the conversation alone. was conf iental
Mr. BRADY here put in the following letter dated oath
July 1874 addressed from plaintiff to defendant from No
ls Pine street,
SR,-
This morning you made charge against my character
before VIM Sterling ESQ., Special Justice OF the City and
County Of New York, which for TO inure my repu
taton The precise words you used the witnesses vary
tate your assertions presume you win not hesitate TO
With due respect, A. CROMMELIN.
To Mn. JAcoB LAroRoE, is Broome street.
The prosecution here rested
OFFENCE.
Mr. WILSON opened for the defence He said he
glad this brought forward The suit
brought for the purpose OF mulcng the defendant who
reputation Of the plaintiff Mr. W. IN the course Of his
statement, say that he would be able to show
for the alleged SANDER by proof OF the ac
Of for the charge contained In the declaration, and
produced for that purpose the following witness
Isaac CocKEFAIR, sworn, examined by Mr. WILSON,
am police officer arrested Mr.. Crommelin the
charge -.
Mr. BRApY-stop awhile. What do you mean to prove
by this witness?
Mr. Wmsos-The fact of Mr. Crommelin having
been arrested the charge alleged.
Mr.. BRADY-You can't introduce such testimony.
Mr. WILSON II am entitled to introduce II by the Eng
ish laws.
CouRr.-Not BY our laws.
7
justification the that would oblige me to charge
actual committal Of the murder would be such
fool as that altogether but am entitled to introduce
what will bear directly upon the case and show by this
witness that he was actually arrested.
Mr.. BRADY have right 10 introduce such tosti.
mony. Even newspaper, on taking up mere parte
statement and not reporting the in full and giving
the leading facts, could be held liable
Mr. WHOM contend that am entitled 10 prove the
justification by showing the fact Of the arrest.
CoURr.-The fact OF the arrest, or any such charge,
does not justify the utterance Of q SANDER
Mr. WILSON cited Wendell in support OF his position,
and read the letter Of Mr. Crommeln showing the ad.
mission, by the plaintiff that the witnesses varied in
the timony the fact Of whether defendant had
said in Court that Crommen actually engaged in
the murder, that he had been "arrested the
charge" entitled him to put in the fact Of the arrest
the charge o. justification.
CoURT-We bound TO go according TO the in.erpre-
tation Of the Witness showing the true import and
ing Of the words used which have been distinctly pro-
Mr. wLsoS-I do not mean to Introduce such testimo-
ny in justification, but in mitigation Of damages.
Examination resumed-Dd you ever call upon him Of
fcially during that investigatoni
Al did
Q-More than once7
Ayes, sir.
Ruled gu, by the Court-Mr Wilson having taken ex.
Odd you not have Mr.. Crommelin in custody seye.
raj days Ruled out by the Court and defence except