American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1846-12-12
lCOrespOsasaee Of the pa!rimm. C,,npsrl

-. 'ASHlhGToN, Dec IT, 1870
me Yam Ness Case. The reporter had little !
l'he last evening, To refer TO the character OF
The evidence gwen Ia by Burlington Anthony |
and John 8 Harris These gentlemen are both |
OF Rhode Island, and are celebrated DOrrites. !
and came to Washington IN the winter OF 1914
on the business OF their party before Congress
1t was on this occasion Harris became acquaint-
ed with Mrs Conner, which acquaintance, by |
the evidence of Anthony and the admission OF
Harris, ripened to such state that the lady |
subsequently in the same year came to ProvI- |
dence, K. J., ION her way to New Hampshire) |
where the attentions Of Harris to her were so |
freely gwen, that Anthony and other friends !
On connection with what Anthony says Harris |
told him) lmblbed the belief that the parties !
were TO he married Anthony related seeing |
The lady and gentleman on one occasion while |
IN Providence, enter together bed room OF
the hotel where the lady stopped, but this, !
" tn the assertion that he ever told Anthony |
he was going to marry the plaintiff, Harris de-
MES, explaining that tho mistakes might have
grown out Of his permitting himself to be joked
on the subject and that there are several private
parlors OH the 2nd floor of the house. Harris
pleads guilty to having pretty extensive cor
reSpondenCe with the lady, and refuses to pro-
duce the letters, affirming to-day, however,
that there is nothing obscene in them. Up to
the Goth of July, 1874, in reply to questions TO
that effect, Harris says he knows nothing pro.
judicial to the chastity of the plaintiff but lie
! refuses to answer any question as TO that point
subsequently. Ofcourse he is not bound 10
answer anything which would implcate him
self, and as he says, he could not answer the
question but on personal knowledge Of facts.
| The counsel for the plaintiff objected to all
this, as irrelevant to the issue in this cause,
and that Anthony having been brought upon
the stand, they were ouly willing for Harris to
follow IN his self-defence. But the defendants
counsel declare their purpose to prove the
character of the plaintiff, from the beginning
aim st of her womanhood, to the present time,
with the consequent improbabties that man
OF such character as Gen. Van Ness, could
ever, without the grossest fraud being praclised
upon him, marry such woman. They have
gone on to say in their efforts TO introduce
further evidence for their purpose, contending,
at the same time, that if there was marriage
in fact between Gen. V. N. and the plaintiff,
it was procured by fraud, and is consequently
i vitiated
The answer TO this argument, is, that il mat
tiers not what was the character oil the plaintiff
whether she was licentiOus woman, or not
that she might have carried on amours with
numberless men, and some may have made
declarations OF their intentions TO marry her,
&c, showing the probabilities Of another en-
! gagement cOntempoTaneously with tho one
with Gen. V. ~, but all 10 no proper effect.
1t Is also contended by the counsel for the
plaintiff, that It is only competent to prove the
want OF chastity of the plaintiff, by general evil
dence OF her character, and not by specific col
lateral facts.
Mr.. Harris and Mr.. Anthony were recalled
for short time TO tho stand this morning, the
former adding TO his evidence declaration
that he knew nothing of any marriage Of Mrs.
Conner since 1914, and the latter confirming
his expressions OF difference with Mr. Harris,
adding qualification, however, that he did
not know exactly on what floor it was up
stairs lie saw Harris enter room with the
lady.
Mr.. Parmenter, collector of Providence, R.
l., testified to the presence of the plaintiff in
Providence about the time alleged.
Mr.. Edw. b. Robinson testified to seeing a
gentleman Promenading on the Avenue several
times with the plaintiff, who, if it had not been
Tor The company he was in, he should have
| taken for Gen. V. NJ, as he was very much
like him, but not quite so tall THIS was
shortly after Mr.. Folks inauguration.
%''' A1OOhuiu " SOOh l6slIleu 10 MIS-. OOIl-
nor's selling him a lot in this city, on which he
paid her S65 in furniture, which she previously
owed, the balance, some $50, going to the Bank
OF Washington This was IN December last
Mr. Henry V. Hill testified that he knew
Mrs. Connor and her husband before they were
married, aud was about 10 testify to their hav-
ing had more than one child, as he buried one
for lhem-but Mr.. Brent interrupted him.
This witness, as disclosed by the subsequent
debate which sprung up, is one of those by
| whom The defence seek 10 establish the loose
| character of the plaintiff, They sought TO
prove by him CONTRARY TO the statement of
Mrs Fowler, the plaintiffs mother, that Mrs.
| Connor had but the one child by her husband,)
that the paternity Of n deceased child OCCASION
ed quarrel and fight in the family aud the
desertlon OF Mrs. Conner by her husband.
Mr.. Brent contended that Mrs Fowler did
not slate they never had hut one child, but
that Common had gone off and left his wife with
but one child.
long argument ensued as to the proprety
OF the questions, during which the jury were
permitted to retire for the day.
The Hon. Fl. w. H,iiiad is expected to
preach in the Wesley Chapel, corner of F and
Fun streets, on Sunday morning at eleven o.
clock. c..