New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-01-20

.s5 Houxtnn-st business restaurant. know WIN
v D1ty and David ) Hollister think was spoken Of
ty NJ. as 10 M DOty regarding the res.1ur AM IN
toe tOwery cid not say anlhns 70 Nj HOiissef
- ailS t the moral Character Of MI. Do'y nave
FRO" hun since l7i6 supposed kne" ne genera
Character before what was said lately before mat
would say has general chafa ter was ,od wolld
Tot hesitate 10 believe him under oath my father IS
TONES Swift residing now W Duchess
By jfr. Van B.-Mr ID. mas worked for me two or
three times ard let him the dining part Of my sa-
| loon he had At for month or 50 took u a. am
| because | think he could not IN Ike II g. he vas
/ employed by myself and Mr.. Thompson az carer,
IN Priest. he TOOK. for short time, the place Of
man that was SICK he afterward was with me At
| ny pace ip Nassau ST. he terSard went for
| himself ~ the BOwery have not heard him spoken
much OF since don't think ever said he was
blower, or gassy man TANK sad ne was
| pretty good talker.
! william Sprqtt sworn BIZ Mr OC.-Sell produce
II market Know WIN NJ Doty kne hin since ne
| was at Croton Hotel am acquainted win MS gen
eIal character would not hesitate to believe nm
| iuCer oath
Br M Van Knew him b. seeing him come
into the market. and also on board the boat have
dealt With HIM kno hm no other way.
Hsphen A. Pterce, sworn-By Nr. On-Aa IN 4, tne
non SAFE business have kLO SR NT. Wm NJ Dry
twelve years his general character IS good would
have 10 hesitation te believe him under oath
| By Mr. Van B--lIaye met him frequently IN the
streeG aud at his house Mr. d kept the PdVlnoa
! Hc,el n Charleston, when | was there | under
stood he was partner was there one WATER IN
| 1910 and Al, attending TO the cotton pressing bust
business, which vas my original business vas there
IT, TIE auction business another time was agent for
tie Bava,ian Ale Company, and also solo SlHe and
liquors., AN married; my vile Is a. biose~ dlel'
Mass, where she has been two years never knew
az, thing against MIR. DOty III Charleston board
WIN MIs Shankland in Chambers-sE; never heard
am tning against M. DO.y here
YIN. ". Dofy, rscalled-By Nr. OC.-I have
TeGrs, by looking al nay boob % see very near the
Nn came from Charleston The last receipt tooE
H. Claiis ston, was Caej Jan 2. 1874, and LEFT day
81 a
Charleston III Iel0 ami went Iubo business III 1871
was m Charleston ne whole OF 1913 II was amer
came back tsa went with Mr. kushtOn | went
with him III Apni and let Ia The fall ll'ed In |
Nc DOUcal-st my iantio-d 5ir kich went thefe In
's4. about the time OF the letter you see renamed
about year have looketsfor my leases, but cannot
hnd them Mr. Rich lived IN par OF the house
the receipt shown got from hum.
MIR. Van did not know tue object OF the tes,l- |
mony, unless TO show whd. they have already |
shown, that what ne said as to going Ia the steam
boat Albany TO Troy IN 1913, VAS untrue.
Mr.. orc. said the object was to show that 1t was IN
lsli instead Of 1913 The facts that he spoke OF,
they wished to show were coTrect-that ne kept |
with Dir Rushon at the time, resided in McDonsal-
St. &c
The Count said it was evident that If the facts |
were as stated BY NJ D., on board the Albany, It |
must have been another year.
Mr. orc read the receipt dated December. 1874 |
also read a receipt witness said was for rent for his
mother and two sisters. who came to Ne1-York the
witness also stated that on looking at the book |
he was mistaken when ne said 1913 1t must nave
By M Van B.-The receipt at Charleston IS for 50,
as received on account rom Mrs L. DotJ dld
business IN my wife's name. lFhe witness wished
to explain, but Mr. Van u. objected Tine receipt |
Goes not state what II was for my wife was not |
there at the time should think she had lie for
New.YOrk thee months before gambling was
not allowed at the place | had IN Charleston
there we're two colOred g,rs lived with me named |
Julia wrote TO one Of them shor, time since for
a bird left there DID not send her bird or any
ether present do not know the steward of the |
steamer NOrtherner do not remember such boat,
there might have been Que have heard OF a black
man named Cowes the last time | saw him he was |
pointed out TO nae in Warren-st, as the steward of
the steamer Georgia did not send, to my recollec-
ton, bird any other present. 20 Julia by him, nor
received, as recoect, letter from her think If |
had should have recoiecled did not write her a |
second lime TO my recollection | was not aware |
that Julia had any husband nor any child as | |
know Of.
Ur Longstreet was called, bu: no answer.
Mr. orc as TO points of Law SAID, when the issues
IN this were framed the code was that the |
Judge might send the whole OF case m divorce,
Guilty., and leave the judgment Tor the court There
has since been slight alteration ID the law, by |
which divorce come under the general law to be
tried by Jury and he thinks the Jury oughs new
To pass upon the whole question, including rnoun'
OF amony and he would like to otier some ii''io
evidence as to the value OF Mr.. s estate -
Mr. orc read from the Amended Code OF ooi, IN |
:, INCH divorces must be tried by jury uness"alyed
or reference ordered Divorces, In the Law coming
under the general issue OF Tnal by Fact. he mas no
objection, however, if an arrangement oy wntcn 70
leave 1t as before and the Court 20 MI up Oh |
the finding OF the jury.
MIR Van B. said the idea was perfectly rev to |
them bat they have no objection TO , the pan pro.
by the counsel the lew law was by TINS means over
looked.
did not know there was any new rule. II the gen
tlemen agree to 1t there does not appear 10 DC any
objection.
Mr. orc. said when the issues were framed, they |
were according to the law then. The nen law Is
1859 and 1857 OF VOORHEES, Code. lie has doubts II
the Jury should not be required to pass upon the
whole question.
The Judge said if both gentlemen agree to an
arrangement, there might be no objection. Some
thing is said IN the complaint and answer as TO the
value of MIR. FPS estate. The question better DC
left over TIL 10 morrow. n.
MI orc wished to have the testimony OF Mr.. Rlch
to show that Mr.. Doty hired of him, when was adj
mitted also wished to show, by Mr.. Longstreet,
owner OF the house In l6thst that the door WAS not
fnished for fortnight. This, and the point ABOVE
being reserved, MI. o C. said they rested
Mr.. Van b. then wished to show testi nony as 10
Mr. Forrest in 1874, the time Mr.. Doty said he went
up river - W..
Mr. Forrest IN June 1914
Am St Louis
Q-Wss he here any time In June. lsii
A--No, Sir.
Q-Was he here any time before the IN July'
!sili
A-No, Sin.
Witness looked at book The memoranda are
IN Mrs. FORESTS hand writing she with him
Mr Van Buren, read from tie O0Os, when was
journal allowed 10 have been written 10y Mrs For
rest, dated ST. Louis, and giving the names OF TIE
performances and the amounts Of receipts each day,
except Sunday from June 10 10 June ~, lSii-nexl
July l. dated DeirOl1-tfom ith TO lSth July al buI-
falo-preyious 10 10th June, 23d Apul at Lexington,
Sd MAY At Cincinnati, and 27th May AZ Nashville
Mr. orc admitted that NJ. and Hrs. Forrest re-
tuned 70 the City from the West l7Ih July ISL
MIR Doty, IN his testimony, stated he went up
riyer the last Of June and beginning Of July.
MI orc. SAID they would admit that Mr.. Forrest
returned to NewYolk on 7th July, lel4 but mat ia
lot affect the testimony as 70 the matters stated
letter dated 2eth June was shown TO witness ana
| recognized by hun.
| Nj Lawson was asked TO the position OF the
| sofas IN the drawing room. Has seen them Al ne
see OF the FIRE place, also between the front windows
and against the dining room door did not resolect
wheter saw either Of them at side OF recess amer