The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-02-27


Rive IL attention whom II up the remark was he
though that other persons were guilty Andres
remember where wss-in the street or in the store
was In the habit Of meeting them every day almost
d,a not rscoliect seeing them near the Grand jury
room only one spoke to him he thought and he could
not tell which; did not remember receiving Q note
Mr.. Jordan had questions to ask this Witness and
being very nearly six O'Clock the Court adjourned
till next morning.
FrB s-Mr. Smith appeared this morning. with Mr.
Bic kles for the defendant The fret witness called
Mr. Geo Bowman. of New York, attorney and Q In.
had been employed at various tunes by both OF them
was the attorney for them and others, in the suit
brought by Carpenter in the Circuit Court
To the Court He believed he was attorney in that
case for all the dsfsndants; eleven In ALL
Mr. When was the suit commenced?
MIR Jordan wanted to rase the question, whether II
hsd anything te do here II ton as
to the Court by reading one count in the
brought by Carpenter for false prisonment and ii
we're to have part they (the prosecutionI had a
right to have the whole which would be let this jury
try that again.
Mr. sckies did not propose to try that over again:
he bad not asked single question that tended to It.
Juoge Greenwood-1t Is to show the truth of the
MT Jordan-How, does 1t show that these parties
we've swipdlsrs, OF that they sxndled robbed Cat
pehterf
Judg.-No; 1t does not show that, but the whole Is
that
Mr.. siekles-was that suit pending in January.
ls+s Answer-Yss Do you know that affidavit
The affidavit of Andres already produced and referred
to, handed to witness
.adse Gresns oos-- VIVA. do you propose to show.
Mr.. sckiss That Andres was ployed by his clients
to make this complaint agsinst carpenter.
General Mather would ask tbs court whether an
affidavit made and sworn before public ministerial
ofcsr of Justice, could BE- said to be mpugDing the
character OF The person charged
The Court thought, under all circumstances, II was
admissible The theory Of the defence was, that
Andres was man totally un worthy of credit
Exspiuation centinued-The affd vas sworn
he 9Th JHDuarv. 1913: che In the Circuit
Court had not been tried then.
MIR Jordan would then take an objection, and sub
NIT II in this point OF view: The ,ibel charged that
Carpenter recovered heavy damages and thereu POM
they employed. They had not recovered damages at
more than any other man. and ought TO be confined
90 the strict proof and prove that the party
guilty OF the particular thing charged, and nothing
different can b- admitted at ell
MIR. sickles thought that it might be a very salts
factory way to the prosecutor to ask the witness
whether it false, whether Mr. Carpenter
had recovered heavy damages and 20 orth, but that
would be to make the witness the judge He
obliged to get the facts rs he coala aud hs pro-
posed to back TO the earliest time when he found
or lad esson to believe that Andros in the
vice Of Sheldon and Freeand; and the first act ne
show contipuous series of acts do aud subse.
quent to the Obtaining Of those ,ordicts whether he
did OF did not, show enough was = question for the
jury; but IL was very strange that they thould be
met by such frequent objec lions; 1t not that
open hsnded and cbivalrous conduct which they
LED to .xptcs from the opening of the CASE He
thought il was throwing doso OF the gauntlet by
the Kidd Salvage Company. and inviting inquiry.
The Court thought the objection va, well ioanded
They had allowed this testimony heretofore, on the
ground that IL &c show the truth OF the article oat
Of which the libel was extracted.
Mr. Bickles contenied that even If there a mis-
take in point Of lime it was i'm lateral If they
pioyed nan TO impugn Carpenter whether 1t was
betor. alter whe Der it prevent his getting
verdict or 10 punish him for having got 1t The
tive YVES the moet material thing to show aud ii they
thowed that the article Substantially true, sud
tfat was fer the jury to PASS upon they proved great
part.
The Court said they could not ao~ the sphere to be
enlarged but must oonhne them strictly to the srtic..
could not be supposed TO be prepared to
jut thcation but IS IL pears In the article
nctly and not under spy change The libel seems TO
cred verdict Bet II you show bat they employees
ccuptereiter without any such motives IL Is cnaugiug
the iace OF the waiter, and charging them with
ohsnoe not contained In the article They could rot
do that
Mr sickles- The affidavit is in evidence
General Msher-No II has been proved but II Is
The w. have allowed you to show thu char.
aeter OF Andres ana Young and will nov allow
bo~ the emrloynent but confne yourself to the time
state. We will let you give In evidence ev Jthug
sGbsqutDtto the verdict In the Circuit Cour Com
Young and that either Of them did impugn Carpsn.
ter CT arscter or anything done BY Sheldon Free
lsDdr.iatise to L..
General N ather thought the court had passed on Il;
be would call their attention 20 the point La
~ wendell 81 IN case II should be again referred
alluded to.
tcuEt-Wl TN teRNI 10 tins MA yhuy, We
adhere TO our decision exclude all matters except
tlote which can Be connected with either Sheldon
Freelsnd
Examinatlon CONTINUED witness continued 20 be
attorney Sheldon and Ere land after the trials Ia
the Circuit Court ana Common Pleas; he did net r--
M n Der tor th-m and the other defendants Ia any
other suits did no. remember meeting Andres after.
wards but once cssusly going up the river IN tss
ssmbsst snd be be ID once stepped In st Lis
(wiintssr Office sitter his discharge froas prison; 10
about the Jsrio3 Of Carp trial in The Court
ofoyer snc TRIMMER supposed Antros got oaL Of
employed in 60 assist the trial OF the psops
against Carpenter, thought there elluslon
maze e the trial when he met andres on board III.
boat b. that after IL had taken place. they tad
conversation Ebuutthe trial when Andres called
his office IL was principally about his intention o. try
ing 10 get in business up Troy and sndesvcr
ing to support his family could not remember any
particular cuDyt reatup with any with resr.ne
Andros tettmony might have mad rome with Mr. shsi.
Frt.labd o. Mr. TO Andres but a, ould
not recall any subseausnt to the dst-s Of thu vej
IL ~ss al ~ays during the htigstons they might have
men be va. qsite sure be never hsd any conference
creation with nsro. the subject after that
GATE the hrst time be knew anyt hing about the Kidd
bslvtpe Company vss In July 1886 had mis- ioforms
ton from Ar Pisrsos aud from the depositiops In the
tuns, be Understood that Mr.. sheldon ana Mr. Free.
land we're the principal parties be did not rsn.f3br
any sl,e being him never was iuteres ed
himself either suba.q 90 chat time before nor
sid be sno- any other rsitie. iBtore'tedin IT, suot
that an public notice ca. given OF IN. dis.olu
ton OF the CID III. iorm ation Of the Kidd
psny; be never was employed in be5slt g. any con
Eeh1t nv Wa 70 20 10 hsckispn county TO
In vrstigsts some charges
The Court " be, do you propose TO show now
sr sickles-At that tiae proceedings on foot
under preterce Of arretibg Ansros but tbs on.
~ AN that arrested Carpenter and thsn
rome charges we're brought srainst him and tss,e
parties employed council and caused him TO be hand
cuied ana afterwards brought him 10 New York.
touft-Thst IL all too general
Dir sieklss -The proceedings we're all general
III Smith proceeded to argue that these proceedings
mis- ht bave been IN order to ext1rt mousy aud that
would be phsss 81 sviud!ng; that Carpenter vas
:, bhed might mean that b. deprived Of his pro.
pettJ BY bsisa obc 20 exhaust his TO defend
inset, that robpery old not necessarily mean
hsh~ay robbery ans 50. not that matter for srgu.
usnt und question FOR tn jury suppose u IL con.
. 6sa that IL I. tar fetched s-sumpttn that
the jury had right 20 IT, however eight the evidence
D iebt be VAS not the question, but whether IL ga,
petrnt 60 them TO ofyr H. What they meant by
teit robbed that tor tso year. no tarrassed
and hs property dwiDdsd n the pete cy aud the
fleet /, not mixed ~ the question aid b. proper
one
Mr. Jordan replied. snd instsnoed some analogous
The nocs OF testng IL would be TO supposs the
question had arisen demurrer -omev bat leuHtby
tropssiob sBsued which will be quite N bst:er