New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-03-26

Harvey williams, 10 show that military expedition
under Gen Lopez, IN which Cap: LIE Wis and MAJOR
| g. we're eseased, actually invaded Cuba
MT. Van Buren, objected, as II was aIter THIS IN
dictper ut was found, and In another District
The District Attorney said he would conaect them.
The Court inquired If Mr.. BURNETT mai come, 20
that the time before recess mlens DC occupied IL
was stated ne had nos come, and recess was OF
dered.
he would admit the testimony 10 snow tnas mere vas
not a revolution or uprising In Cuba, at tue ame.
He vould also allow testimony, the Court resefvlns
10 itself the right exclude II aterward, tenddsto
show that the expedition, which Is charged fn(ms
Indictment was part and parcel % that sN1cn
landed--it will be for the Jury to say whetherdhs
VAS a military expedition-the District Attorney will
be limited to proof as 70 this transaction, not to get
testimony for prosecution a. 10 anosoeS oeahlon
Mr.. Van Buren, complained that they had been
taken by surprise. The District Astorny annopecea
yesterday that he should effer but one ortWo other
witnesses, and they to the same point,-and here
10 witness brought up la totally different pro-
ceedise and another matter.
The District Attorney said he stated he should
bring up only two three witnesses, but did not
eonfne himsef ~ 70 their testimony. As to an ex-
petition to Cuba the law prohibits 1t although tnsfe
may DO civil war, out there might De some excuse
for persons to 70 emlgrants but could not az an
expedition.
mr. Hoffman, lin reply to further remark OF
Mr. Van Buren, that il would be proper to wait till
the defense rho the situation OF afars) said that
the prosecution do not intend TO inquire AZ TO
revolution in Cuba, &c
Mr. Van B. commended that the other testimony
offered, being matter in another District, add after
the Indictment, could not be shown.
The District Attorney said in order to save time,
be would withdraw the witness, and the testimony
for prosecution would be considered closed.
H. BURNETT having been brought to Court, ne vas
placed upon the stand, on CROSSE examination.
Q. By Mr.. Van B.-(BeiDg tAe same which witness
before refused TO answer,) What took place be-
tween you and Mr. Chacon the morning you called
at the Consulate
Wltness-I decline to answer, Sir. Ihave already
given my opinion upon the point.
MI Van B. said, 1t is matter for the consideration
OF the Court-it is competent for 1t to make out
new commitment, and order an additional nne
been disposed Of have suggestion 70 make az to
the course the trlal is to take.
Mr.. Hoffman Ihosght unless the gentleman aban-
doned the witness altogether temporary commit
ment I'LL to morrow might answer
Mr. Van b said, il is difficult for the defense to
know what course 10 pursue while this nan IS In
this way II his testimony struck out altogether,
still having been on the stand fer day and hall,
an effect will be had this jury and he would sub
NIT whether it would not De proper, under the
circumstance to discontinue the trial for the present
altogether.
whether the testimony will be struck out or not,
will be for the decision OF the Court after motion
has been made to that effect by the defeIse. II it
should be struck out, still the prosecution think
there 10 sufficient testimony to prove the case. He
thought the gentleman could not be serious In ask
ing 70 have the trial adjourned.
Mr.. Van b said he ant what he had stated. As
to the testimony OF witness on his direct examina
ten, ivan B do not mean to make a motion to
strike it out till we have shown the witnesses char
acter. As the counsel for defense have not had An
opportunity to consult as to the matter OF Defense
they would ask the Court now to adjourn till tomor
row, when this witness can be brought up again to
see If any thing can be got out OF him. The motion
Is, therefore, that the witness be fined and inpris
oned, and thatth Court adjourn till tomorrow.
hesMs. Hoffman and Hall opposed adjournment
as the time to period OF recess could be probably
occupied.
The Court suggested whether Mr.. Van B. could
not pass this question TO witness, and proceed
with Others Mr. Van B. suggested whether the
continued refusal of the witness to testify has purged
the contempt. The counsel said they would make
no election In the case.
The Judge said then no election 10 made will
proceed to dispose Of the witness The Judgment
of the Court 10 that witness be committed and that
he pay fine OF $3.50 and stand committed until the
fDe 10 paid.
The Judge then remarked that as the counsel have
requested time till to morrow for conference, 1t Is
bat proper they should have it, and the Court will
accordingly stand adjourned.
CIRCUIT Court - Before Judge Mitchell.
-Bwtis against Magrath TO recover rent, defend
ant not referred to. Verdict for
Csnant q Demarest against Sanger Benedict and
Benedict Rockuell-On note for 81 GAS, made by
dorsed by latter The defense IL usury. in 10 per
cent having been taken in oiscounting Verdict for
plaintiff In amount and interest
s. Manning az alnst John ". Verpank and Others
To recover $500 for alleged loss In defendants re-
fusing to dry quantity Of corn, which had been
sunk. as they agreed to do IL was cargo OF 1900
bushels sunk IN the Hudson, but raised and put on
board lighter, and sent to defendants drying lofts
at Atlantic Dock, they having agreed It Is said to
dry it for four cents bushe but after $50 bushels
had been delivered by the lighter they refused to
| receive any more, when 1t had TO De sent no the
| North River to be dried at a cost of 25 cents
bushel |. is also said that the delay greatly in
! jured the corn, &c In defense, 1t 10 denied that
there such a contract it is also said that the
Health Officer interfeIed, said 1t dangerous TO
more-that the 636 bushels dried and returned,
| &c. The case 10 on.
SUPERIOR CoURT-BefOre Judge Jones,
Ocean Bank agt John Lousjoy and Wilmot Williams
To recover a note made In April, 1851, BY Mr.
Loveoy to Mr.. Williams and subse Quenty discount.
! ed for latter by the Bank. Payne nt contested
by Mr.. Lovejoy, on the ground of usury he assert
! ing that in the original agreement with Mr.. Williams
TO discount, he was 10 pay per cent month for the
| time Il had to run.
| Mr.. Williams was placed upon the stand to prove
the alleged agreement, but his testimony obi ected to
and ruled out on the ground that his ans wers might
make him liable to a criminal prosecution Verdict
| for plaintiff In amount and interest
Before Judge Bosworh
Holmes sgt Fiammer recover $500 on work
ing road, az Strattenport, &c, already referred to-
Verdict for plaintiff $3.50.
COMMERCIAL MATTERS.