New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-11-27
The VIM Ness Trial.
Correspondence Of The Tribune.
r,--ox- NJ,

Correspondence OF Inc
WASHINGTON. Nov. q. IS45
\ rainy uorni1g and their attendance IN Court
al sill who are dragged hitherto b. the gentle coer
c;o, Of summons OF the less resistbe potency Oh
~ attachment, This Is the seventh cay OF the case and
seem AZ vet not 70 hare reached ta- beginning OF the
end
W TTbbe,:-The deed shown him ~ss written 5y
Gen. Van Ness. saw ain w.ite i while wrions the
General looked il tie dictionary frequently could net
recoilect the words he looked FOX
ON cross .exsrn;nsr;oa-The word ceiling was one
word there vas another but ne could not recollsct II
Charles Msur-was married in Pine-st Philsae!phis
Counsel for defence here stopped the witness obecens
70 the adrnssibiy This evidence 10 prove Whist was
TIE Law OF A State Tie existence OF ce IN" must Oe
proved II another mode Inc pom " - .. Nnu
the Court decided that the written Ia" must De pro
NJ Robertson re.exaIaiaet-The letter shown him
was IN the handwriting OF General an Ness
Cross ErrFiEci-NVas agent OF Cen az Hes 10 ne
tine OF his deata- Made collections aieE"Sfu uai-'
stopped ....,,.;.,:.,
70 produce G., tain letter dated July u, l>+1 Fianrd
denied having such Letter Defence required thst plain
NJ should state oath that size never Dad sac .et'ef'
The Counsel for defence then applied FOR rule 10 snow
cause why his letter had not been produced IL w IS
cou;endei By Mr. Brent. Counsel TOR the p!acif taa'
was uow TOO late 10 give that uouce-that II ought to
have been given at the COMMENCEMENT OF the case
An argument WIS here gone. into (wa!lc NJ Bradley
was preparing h!s appcat!unl % the Counsel Tor we
ulsril- ana authorities produced % SHOW Whai
was the usage which had prevailed IN Pennsylvania as to
marriages and 70 what extent these usaees, although
no, consistent with the Ism uae OF The Statute, mad been
sanctioned By the decision OF the Supreme Court o. the
state Il was coateuded that tie law was merely direc
tory snd that violation OF its provisions would not
s;sect tie legality OF marriage
Counsel 10. tie defence (Messrs Cox and CiIpnl con
z. gr'-
the aw OF Pennsylvania was the production OF the wrlt
ten law ITSELF and the judicial exposition OF the law 0y
the Supreme Court Ii was az irregular ana Inconc!u
ive mode of procedure call any bystader 70 state
how he was married ard from that testimony 20 estab
sh what was the custom OF the STATE Clergyman by
6n express provision OF the law are authorized 70 marry
according the forms practccd 5y their respective re
Mr. Bradlcy read TIE lar OF the State Of Pennsylva.
MIA alter which the Counsel c the plaintiff stated Their
desire 10 withdraw the testimony OF Charles Mann.
which had given rise 10 the argument
Mr Rivcs knew the handwriting OF Gen. an Ness ten
wears AGO when he used 70 wrlts Tor the Globe lad
no; much OF i since Considered himself cood
1!sa of handwriting until the Dowdea when he
fnGnd no id not know much as ne thought ne ali
Had tau sht himself to wri,c ty initiating hand which
hc selected He though; tie letters were IN the hand
writing OF Cen Van Ness. Ills own hand had been 80
closely initiated by clerk who had been in his office -
years that he could distinguish from the other
Being cross examined stated that the figures appeared
10 be written By distinct hands-especiay referring
20 the figure > The examination Of the figures was con
timed 10 a considerable length OF time
Rev. Mr. Sproc clergyman attached 20 the Tres
bytc-ian Church had lived IN Philadelphia five years
and in Carlisle years had married more while IN
Philadelphia than in Carsle-more titan 200 perhaps
altogether
The evidence was Interrupted. objection being
taken by Mr. Bradley for the defence, 10 this mode OF
proving by parole evidence what the law and usage
OF the State OF Pennsylvania and the argument on the
case continued until the hour OF adjournment.
Tomorrow being Thanks giving Gay the Court Will
not ~. The case for the defence will commence on
Friday.