New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-02-17
MADAME CosteIlo,s Trial.
CoURr OF SEssIoSs.-IT7al Of Catherine Cos.
~ CL.-j.s .Ic.ou-Contiuued

CouKT OF SEssIoSs.-I'rlal of Catherine Cos.
,silo and Charles Mcson-Continued.
On the opening OF the Court yesterday morning the
District Attorney stated that one OF the Witnesses Tor the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Edward Cnrrol-who had been duy
ubnonsed and was here on Thursday. had been as he
believed By some improper means induced TO keep
NJ the way that an attachment had since been issued
for him but the officer "ss unable 70 find him, ne hav
in, hcen ahsent from his homo for three days The
Court cond do nothing aid the District At,oraey in
no nren,ises This witness, it will be remembered is
the person who proved, collected Mrs Cosellos
bill! OF so from Mas on
NJ SBeoperd OF defence, then moved the Cour, 70
s,rike out the whole of the testimony of Mrs the
no,ber Of the Young girl she home TO Hoboken
the night after her partial examination Tor the prosecu
ton and before that examination completed (proms
ng 10 return the next day and before the defendants
counsel could cros seXsrine her, although OF
the defendants' counsel the Court understood had
declined to crosse examine her. The District Attorney
had moved to place her under bonds 10 appear which
the Court declined 10 DO
,nonv NJ Mrs- for the present. but would consider it,
The District Attorney then offered 10 prove that he
Ind ;ssued M attachment for Mrs.-on Saturday
after was asceraneG that she did not appear in Court
as she had promised 10 do, and proved by Mr. letters
tho officer that an attachment was put into his hands
saturday that he went 10 house in Fandam.st where
abe had been and W.. there told she had left and gone
m Eoboken where she resided and had since been
seen in this city.
counsel to present their defensive testimony If they had
any
Mr. Morrison of counsel for defence stated that they
had such testimony but declined calling unless Mrs.
was produced or her testimony strken out.
MIR Lynch OF counsel for Mason. then moved that the
case be taken from the prosecution and determined, as
he stated that the corpus deci had not been proved
against Mason.
Mr. shepperd on the part Of Mrs. Costello made a
similar motion.
Mr. Scoes also on the part OF Mason, moved the Court
10 compel the counsel for the prosecution elect upon
which count of the indictment they proposed depend
for the conviction of the accused parties.
The District Attorney said he should proceed all
the counts to which the counsel for defence took
ccpton.
Dr. James Rodgers was then called by the defence 10
testify on certain professional points connected with
midwifery and was cross-examined by the District At
torney.
The defence called the OF several witnesses who
did not appear.
The Court then peremptorly denied the motion to ex-
clude the testimony of Mrs. :"
The testimony then closed both sides. aud l.. B..
Sheuperd commenced and concluded summing up
speech on the part OF Mrs. Costello.
Mr. Price followed in behalf OF the prosecution.
Mr. Scoes closed ior Mason and was followed by the
learned District Attorney for the people
After very sound and impartial charge from his Hon
or Judge ngrahan the Jury retired for elaboration and
soon returned with verdict of GUILTY. The Court
then sentenced Mrs. Costello to six months mprison-
neut in the Penitentiary and to pay fine Of $3.50 and
Mason to four months in the Penentisry and fine Of
$3.50.
Cupid, the barGc.To5ber is to be tried this morning