The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-03-03

m New York 81 the Coton Hotel he Steward in
was in some eating house; had him in Mr. Thomp
refecory; during the last and the beorehe
had seen good deal OF him. he furnished him with pro-
yisions had heard his character before the
trial when hotel keepers meet they generally talk of
people in the business had heard Mr. Hayes of the
Franklin House. and others, speak OF Doty his character
was said be very good and he was very punctua in his
bu1nes had heard other persons, not In the trade talk
of him before the trial Mr. Packer poulterer In Wash
ineton Market said he good honest fellow and
FIRST rate steward , -. c,
stated that the teegaphc despatch she received
Mr. Whiting proposed 10 read it IN evidence
Mr. Chat6e not objecing, it was read as follows =
.'By telegraph, from New York-ro Harriet Doty-
.'You and Calista must come to New YORK nstah'y'
want to testify the time visited you tn that
may help to fix the date All your expenses WIZ oe paul
Start instantly, or Il win be too late .. Answe. ,m%ec
tely. WIN N. DOTY, on Grove street.
The NEw York HERALD edition Of the trial. and the mi
nutes Of the Court were referred show the testimony
in the divorce suit closed the 10TH except that Of Two
witnesses recalled BY arrange ment next morning.
james y. Otis swon-besided in this CITY, and was
assistant editor of the Ees newspaper attended part
Of the trial between Mr. and Mrs. FORE in the Superior
Court was present at the time Dr. Quackenboss gave
Be to state what he said with reference to his
attendance Miss Clifton, her physician, from some
time in the month Of April until some time In the month
ception taken. Mr. Whiting stated, as apology for
Offering the testimony again, that since 1t had been
rule 4
not objected to- but that the witness did not recolcct
Mr. Chafeld said he had probably forgotten to do So
BE objected now.
him In his book Of daily visits to Miss Clifton from the
10th September, and back TO the 2sth Of April 1sig
Same obiee ton and same ruling)
Jesse Ketcham, printer OF New York was next exam.
ned as to the defendants character, which he pro-
nouncsd good never having heard 1T questioned.
menced about the year 1s48 his as far he
knew It. good; he took possession Of house owned
BY the witness in 1884, hired It the December prscedng
the Fourth of July 1884, his impression strong that
Mr. DOty was at home then; remembered him leaving
home in the summer, after the Fourth he told witness
where he was go g said he meant to pay visit to his
family by which understood he meant his parents he
said either in Rochester or Syracuse but could not rec
ect which somewhere out west in this States said
he had not them for many years. he away
for than one he thought and less than two weeks
Witness in Naedougal street he was positive about his
being at home the Fourth as witness was out al day.
srewoiIs than usu. and Doy partook in letting them Of
Re-easmined by Mr. Clark, and a memorandum OF lease
handed to witnessHe quite certain about the date
it 1s43 when he first hired the house himself and the
memorandum was lease from him to the occupant pre-
Mr.. John Beekn 70 caled-Produccd his book from
3lst August, 1914 to about Sd March, ls45.
ns d., hp Mss on tss 10th Of
Mr. Whiting proposed to show there were prescrip-
tons from Dr. Quackenboss from 10th July to 18th Of
The objection sustained, and the inquiry being
put in the form Of question, was ruled out and excep
O. Did You receive prescription from Dr. ouackenboss
fer Miss Clifton at any time after 31st August and So
at 81
pouterer; had known Mr. Doty Ave years. or more; his
character wae good.
many people their opinions one way and another
Mr. Whiting offered the Albany Evesin1 Journal from
July to December, 1874. Objected to and withdrawn
Mr. G. StonA eYam connected
railroad @ How much time did It occupy to 60 from
Albany to Buffalo by railroad in 1927
Mr. Chatheld asked the relevancy OF this.
Mr. Clark said their Witness "Bazes" had stated that
they went in day. and he wanted to show the mpos
sbility and consequent naecuracy Of the witness.
Mr. Chataeld objected, and the Court sustained him.
Exception taken
1s IN T.. .na n
months Of june July, or August, 1892 Same objection
Jshn W. Orr engraver, sworn-Had had slight know
Ledge Of Doty six or seven years. as far - he knew his
character was good
Cross. examined-KDew him but sHghtly, and had not
John Van Wfnhle, potmsker, Mr.. William Jackson, Of
New York, and Mr. John A. Pullen, were sevsrany OK
At the adjournment Of the Court the counsel for the
defence said they had concluded their testimony with
whose evide, ce would most likely be ruled out They,
therefore, only wished TO the right to offer and
have 1t passed upon, which was conceded.
Adjourned till Wednesday morning. at eleven o'clock.
THIRTEENTH DAY.
MARCH 2The testimony for the defence being AL In,
the prosecution commenced to call their rebutng evil
The first witness placed the stand for this purpose,
Mr. J. lawson, who had before been examined
We're you In the city from the 18th July, 1874 to the
end of that month?
Mr. Carh objected The evidence sought to be given
not Iebutng and rule Of law better settled
than that the prosecution should mot be allowed to
open their case.
mony was reSutting The defence had shifted their
ground and shown that Doty had to Rochester at
period later than that to which he testified and was to
Mr.. Whiting followed the same argument adduced BY
his associate The witnes Mr. lawson had before been
mitted they might recall the coored woman and other
witnesses 1t not TO rebut anything they had sho
The Recorder said the rule was certainly well establish
ed that the prosecution must exhaust their testimony.
and then the Defence and that none could be admitted
peared to them that 1t must be to rebuff fact but this
to rebuff inference which could not be done and
ton was ruled out. Did you see Mr.. Forrest daily,
from the 10Th July 1874 to the end Of the month"; Same
objection same ruling O. Have you any memorandum
the end Of July, ls44' Same objection, ruling
Did Mr. Forrest eau daily at yolr place Of business in
The witness then withdrawn.
Henry Reeve cslledResided in Greene street. and did
so in 1874; was coal dealer; knew Mr. Forrest @ Did
he deal with you in July, lS44s
Mr. Clark objected to the question inmatersl mel.
Their was It introductory unless it be to such
exception taken by defendants counsel) A. He did
deal with me In July, 1914. Q Did Mr.. Forrest settle
with you and pay money In July, and whens Job
ectcd to- and ruled out the grounds BEFORE
and after renewed discussion Of the subject and incl
tally of the whole case.)
O. no you zee Mr.. Forrest between the 18th and the
end Of the month Same objection, same ruling)
Hamilton Degraw sworn--kesidcd in Brooklyn knew
the defendant by sight, from what he had heard, his
charsctc was rather bad.
Cross examined-Thought he had had some dealings
with him. he called at the witness place for some things
and he got them he paid for them he knew Mr. For
rest his tailor mad done work for him for FIVE or
six months had before then called the Forrest
case Previous to that who did you hear speak Ill Of
Mr. noys A. Mr.. Crandell and Mr. Quinn; Mr. Crsndell
attended bar at the place Mr. Doy witness had
In the Forrest case used the expression that Crande
"srotc against him rather by inuendo than anything
ese' Mr. Quinn fron.setter in NASSAU street. and
neghtor Of HIS heard any one else speak Of him
before that time.
Re examned-o. What has been his character since
that trial and what is it nowS Collected to rs to the
merits and that 1t re-opcnng the direct examns-
ton Question allowed and exception taken) 1t was
4. k.. II >1o nAvrtt A