New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-03-13
Law Courts.

Court or COMMON PLEAs-RetOre Judge Day -
Issepk Rogers and Mary his NJs ~ MaFSard hoss'
s,d az Mdrsarst O BreH Action for SANDER In the de
f.ndent saving 10 Mrs Mary z You were seen in bed
with John Leonard. with your arm about his neck and
can prove it-you have been waking with gentlemen
in the cveuing-yOu have been 20 the pay win man
and afraid 10 look round Tor fear of being By one
who knew you-you wanted 10 hire Catherine Connolly
Ia poison your husband This was continued from
PHbay Catherine Connolly whose name 10 mentioned
above was in Court She ia redebeeked little glrl
about Il or 10 years Of age. The defendant was not
In Court being II was said. sck--Mr and Mrs Il the
plaintiffs were also present
II was said that Catherine (who lived as domestic
with Mira RI had been accused In relation to some
money matters and left she went TO reside with the
defendant for short time i was also stated that DE-
fendsnt resided with brother OF Cspt Rogers and
nassed by his name but doubt existed among some OF
Inc family as 10 their marriage. and GOODNESS sprung
up Subsequently 10 Catherine leaving Mrs X me de-
fendant said 10 Mrs r. what has been charged Game
rue WAS sent for who exhibited considerable tepida
lion but stated in presence Mrs. Coles, sister OF
Capt K that what had been said was true. Mrs. hog'
ers the plaintiff said she would appeal 10 the laws In re-
gard 10 her character and this suit was Instituted JUS
ufcation being put in.
Catherine in her testimony Friday, stated that she
saw Mrs K. and John Leonard on one occasion alter
Ching and sporting ia from the ehar 10 ne moor
when Mrs r. got up blew out the light and locked the
door she also knew John L. % be there every other
evening when Capt r. away. knew him 10 stay all
night aud 10 have them the bed together she
also said that Mrs r. without any previous notice Of
tered her $50 or 500 10 poison Capt r. Catherine
E
said she laughed at her and nothing more was SAID &C
The testimony rested almost entirely upon the credi
bilty Of this girl Several witnesses were trough. g
who declared that they knew her were acquainted win
her character and would not believe her under oath-
lady with whom she at present lives and mas done 90
for six months brought up 10 rebuff this but me
lady only sgd she did not know whether she would be
Iobn Leonard the young man slluded TO- was called
TO the stand on behalf Of plaintiff be Is respectable
appearing young man. and worked al the time a. boo!
Inn 10
family in Monroe ST. He stated that be was acquainted
with family In the same house were Capt K and Mrs
lived cousin OF his named William, boarded with
the family. He met Catherine Connolly In the hall
became acquainted with her and aiterwsrd paid atten
don 10 her tie saw Mrs. Rogers, With two or three
other ladies' In the house call Al his cousins sck room
with snys little decacies they might have cooked snd
supposed would be agreeable 10 him. The first time
witness ever visited Mrs Rsgerss apartments was by
the invitations OF Catherine Connolly never did 80 al
t4rward Ofener than twice we. K and sometimes moi
ofreuer than once fortnight visits always u
Catherine Nothing OF an improper character or con
versanon passed between myself and Mrs Rogers
nor did ever observe hear what was spoken Of as
signal After Catherine left continued 20 visit her al
her new residence but found her conduct to be light
IN was said while Al Mrs she used % beckon e
beaux out Of the window and lett her. From what
have seen and heard Of her would not believe her an
der oath. =,
said by counsel but Il did essentially vary the cas-
from the above. Something was said about Capt X
having another wife, bat to meet this II was asserte'
that be had been divorced from her-slso mat MIS-
had another husband but the not given o
either point would they vary The present question
No testimony offered 10 suost2ntiate other part
than those named of the words complained o.
The case was well and carefully summed up Dy pr
Haskell for defendant and Mr. Van HoTenourg on Ia
part Of plaintiff The Court in s charge considered IN
words in relation the poison to be sufficient TO man
tain the action. The question was a. 70 the credloiht
10 De attached 10 the evidence Of Catherine Connolly
II the Jury consider what said have been tru
the defendant stands justified otherwise the planur
entitled 10 verdict the amount Of damages bein
wholly a subject for the consideration Of the Jury 4
regard 70 his point the words having been said pair
III herself instead Of defendant going abroad covert
70 njure her should be taken into account in mitigation
Sealed verdict this forenoon.