New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-05-31

TO give impressions in reference to the report u the Com
nittee of the Quarterly Conference.
O. When this kind Of testimony was onered' TSsH 0o-
| j, cted TO on the part of the defense
| A. II not.
@ WAIST on the part of the prOsecuticn'
A. IL .,
@ Were you then member Ofthe secOndst Church.
A. Twas
| Q. Are you still member OF that Church
A. Question objected Ia and ruled ont
O. Are you row member Ofthe Wllst%t Church
Objected 10, and ruled cut
@ Have you had any conversation with broIheF Tease
about the testimony You to give on tllt trial
DR. Bond-That il, did Brother Pesse tel you what tesli
mony TO give IN this trial
M Perry-I don't want you 20 shape my questions Tor
DR. Bond-Wen suppose have a rigat to object;
hr Perry-Yes but not to cOnsIue aud interpret M
Ruled out.
Q What csnversation had you with Brother Pease on
the testimony relative 10 this trial
Mr. Pease-l must object to this lie OF examination Ot
il be well known to all that both parties hera
held conversations with their wnessesi and certainly
did for there would be no in calling persons here
witnesses who could say nothing on the case
Mr. Pease called for the Charge OF the Presiding Elder
The production of this Obeeted IL, a. II not
part Of the record, ard was given orally.
DR. Bond considered that it was as much part Of the
proceedings the testimony. II was the charge 70 the
Committee and important as the charge OF The Pre-
aiding Judge 10 the Jury IN Criminal Iral aud We ciAn
that being against the prisoner at the BAR II Is necessary
for testimony the Specification
The Bishop decided that he had power to order the
Charge be put in evidence unless il part Of the
but whether should have been the record
Dot is another question and whether the Presiding Elder
Lad right 10 have put the record not here nov 10
be decided.
After much argument pro and con, the Bishop decided
be could not produce the Charge.
Brother Brswn next exAmiued-l was present at the
trial referred 20.
O. Can you state any fact showing that the Presidog
Elder unduy sympahized with the prosecution
A. think the conduct and the spirit OF the Presiding
Elder showed this.
The Bishop-I do not think if this objected to- that /.
be admitted for testimony As TO conduct and spirit
goes to show bis opinion and not facts.
Objected TO, and stricken out.
The question was then repeated.
a. When was proposed to bring evidence on the part
Of the plaintiff the Presiding Officer make objec
ton nythng which offered the contrary, when
il proposed the part Of the defense 10 show parts
connected with the case they ruled out without be
ing objected to on the part OF the plaintiff sci re-
member instance where when the defendant proposed
to prove fact and it objected to, the counsel endeav
Ored 10 speak and show why he wanted Introduce
it, when the Chairman up and struck his hand warmly
the table and said " will not allow this 10 go any fur
Their While Brother Pease making his address
the Committee, the Chairman was isless and mat
tentive. ard Of the Committee remarked that
IL would soon be midnight, and the Chairman anwGxA
" Yes. During the whole Of Brother Pease remarks i
could Lot help observe the uneasness and anxiety
20: through with the address that was then being male
On the contrary, Brother ARIEL arose, the
part of the plaintiff the Chairman turn and look the
counsel in the face and watch with anxiety and interest all
he had to say At point in this address, where it
seemed to rather confirm the prosecution say the Chair
turn to one Cf the Committee who was sitting his
len, snd look sharp at hun; he wnked by closing his
lett eye, knowingly Which pliiny conveyed TO my mind
that he wanted 10 convey to them That's about the thing
do not now what the brethren thought around me- for
spoke ouv TO one or two; but | greatly mortified,
myself canuot call any other particular part mind nor
RENE nbsr thing OF The charge but his whole conduct
left that impression my mind and il has remained
since.
Brother Nash was examined-I member Of the Com.
mtee; / recollect that the Presiding Elder at one
time Winked at me and nodded
Question by Detnse-Cau You re30llect anything that
would lead you to consider that the Presiding Elder
showed any undue parlaly
A. do not now recolect anything at all on this subject
as was busy listening to the evidence and paid atten
ton t. Iything did he everspeak as 10
prejudice sgans Brother Pease nor speak to at
al on the subject; nor had he an opportunity.
O. Did you express your opinion the Char 20
the COMMITTEE aud call it an Outrage!
The question objected to this still opening
because opened too wide hed anu not because Brother
Nash might gh not give evidence adverse to the plain
DR.. Curry-We are prevented from proving ANYTHING
but facts aud may be dfEcut to do So give an
understanding Of the The brother of the
membrs Of the Committee and his impression on the case
could be guide to the Conference.
Question ruled out.
The following specification was next read;
e.geH eontary 70 81 precedent the Defense to sum
Brother Perry was then examined.
Q IN what order was the summing up directed
a. | read from the record; The prosecution would
Len ave The right u open and Brother Pesse and DR.
Bond summed up for the defense, and Mr.. Sudow and
Mr. ARIEL said few words for the prosecution"
Q Were the prosecution allowed to enter at large into
tie chsree OF this final summing mp obliged cOnfne
themselves to the points made by the defenssI
A. The brethren in summing up, ouly occupied few
minutes and dwelt the few points which they con.
sdered important to the total neglect of the other parts
O. lid they conine their remarks TO points made by the
deieIsel
A think not BY think" do not mean an infer.
ence ] give to the best Of my recollection.
Q. Did both ARIEL and SudlOw make speeches on the
occasion
A. do not recollect exactly it is my impression that
they did but their remarks did occupy than ten
minutes and Brother Sudiow did not intend TO spsak at all
only when the other brother had done speaking he seemed
70 recoec something the other had not touched and he
was permitted to say few words
The sixth specification now came up;
an using bliss the minds Of the Commit
tee o. airst ne before the investigation was had"
Rev Mr. Soudder was examined.
q Did Rev Mr. Bangs speak 10 you on the sub
ie Of this trial before you called on to on the
Committee did he enter at all on the merits Of the
a lie did speak to ne but cannot say whether on the
merits Of the he Go not detail 10 me any OF the facts
Of the case he did not give me any opinion on the merits
Of the case don't exactly understand the question.
This question was then objected TO-
DR.. Cury-We desire to show by this question that
Brother Bangs before the appointment Of the Committee
went around speaking this subject and thus sounded
the brethren, IN order 10 select Committee of his own
The question was ruled out.
O. Had You any conversation with Brother Bangs before
the action OF the Quarterly Conference in the Second st.
ChurC h. making the charge against Brother Pease
A. No did not any conversation had with him grew
out Of the action Of that Conference did not accompany
Brother Bangs there.
@ Did you tsIe tea with Brother Bangs that evening,
or the evening previous, at Brother JessOpsl
Question objected t0a
DR. Curry-We want 10 show that Brother Scudder was
tempered With. Here is Presiding Officer going around
and talking about this affair to different brethren and then