The New York herald., 1851-07-11

upon that OCCASION in which he stated that he had been
to Ruekmsns house. and mig ht have left letter there
did 80 by direction Of Wilkes and that he had written
the article in the Police Gasstts, dated 22d Juue
Examination Of Mr.. Russell continued-After hs had
shown him that article be asked him to other ones
when objections we're taken. Of which he avaed hiuseif
he also refused 10 whether the report true
the judicial proceedings; he said be had been to Mt
Ruckmsns house on the subject Of letter Mr. huck.
man had shown Mr.. Wilkes
Cross examined by Mr.. schafer-Had said nothing
beyond that about its being forgery thought two let
ters were shown TO Mr. LeXow they were not the t
papers shown to him 1t after the paper Of tina 22i
June had been shown TO him did recoect whether
he showed him a publication Of November 24th 1919
certain he did had several papers with him ii
~ ne nsa the paper OF the M but he did not
ton had furnished any report Era of tn
examination or for any other paper he believed one
reporter had asked to see his notes; did not know
whether Mr. Ruckman had any interest in the Era or
whether report was taken from his notes those minutes
he had taken them ut the time except that he
had int riucd them at his Office to Mr. Lexow vail
ing hmsslf Of his privilege that was some three
four days after had been attorney for Mr.. Ruckman
about two years did not know Of mis- sending goods
to California
BY the Court-what has that to do with the
Mr schanei.-I propose to show thas Mr.. RucSman's
principal business is horse racing and then suing TO get
back the stakes.
Nj Clark-Tbat is not in good faith.
Gross examination continued per shown and hand
ed up Did not know that the trial ut Special Sessions
was on those papers it the subject matter of the
ut; witness had presented the letter produced
TO LeAow who said 1t was not ia his handwriting
the trial before Judge Morse, witness did recoec
I
Alderman Schultz called Lived Ia the Third ward
had known the painrff for fifteen eighteen years he
was merchant; had never heard anything against him
until the appearance Of the article.
Cross ned The first article which attracted mis-
attention might the of his trial the
Court Of Sessions
Q.-W ere not some Of these accounts which you saw
accounts o suits for money lost by him. at
A-No The first was the one in the Police Gazt,; he
had the account of the horse suit with Stacey
Pitcher; 1t was the in the Poce Gazette that first
gave him any idea derogatory to the plaintiff had not
hf IA afa ,ia
might have felt delicate about speaking TO him; had
spoken to any one, he recoected about plaintiffs
character might have said he sorry have it,
Alderman benson was next called, who testified to
the plair ts general character and standing the cy
had only a general acquaintance with him.
Aide IMAM Smith Dunnng testified to the character OF
the plaintiff, whom he had known some ten or fifteen
years. was well known in his neishborhood for of
character and property.
The offered show by this witness that for
The period OF six years preceding the publication of the
alleged libel the plaintiffs character that of grossly
Ecentious man
Objected to- being in ISSUE being improperly
Mr. CLARK said the Court hal the power Of amending
the pesdings at any time, ard if the attorneys could
keep them purer the passage as to "the matters
charged in Il libel' should be struck out.
The Court held they might go into general character
but not into specific viceand the question ruled
out
Frederick A. Tsmadge Re corder of New York, callei-
Had been Recorder in 1885, presided the trial Of
kuckman and fined him $40; he was tried at Special
Sessions could not recolrct If Indictment il was
usual to have the Indictment where had been found
ana all the papers; had known MIR Ruckman l.
p years but only by general reputation; heard
him otherwise impugned
The question TO Sr. Barrett's offer was again put
and ruled out. Tie indictment ordinary one
and co. taned no charge of pdecency at all.
To the Court Remembered the nature Of the charge;
II was tot violent assault, it was an ipropriety
than anything else.
Mr. Wilson Hunt and Thomas c. Bardine were
examined on the point Of character aud testified the
preceding witness had done, to the plaintiffs general
reputation and standing
The Court then adjourned till tomorrow morning
(this day.