New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-08

ARRAY at Stsnwix Hall. He offered 70 re.d it to con-
traoict Deans testimony given 10 this case.
Mr. Whiting said that in order to have 1t resd the
attention Of the witness should be caled TO it while
on the stand, in order to give him an opportunity to
explain IL.
TIE Court sus, aimed the objection.
TIE Court then adjourned till Saturday.
THE SUIT BROUGHT BY THE WIFE OF A
CATHOLIC PRIEST.
The fourth hearing in this case took place on yes
terdsy at the rooms of G. N. Van Colt the rsferee
appointed by tie Supreme Court of the See md Dis
triet with aDe by the consent OF both parties Full
erton and Hulse appeared on the psIt OF Julia A.
Smith, the plaintiff McCue & Lett 70, Bishop John
Losghlin, the defendant 1t will be remembered tn
this 10 suit against the Bishop Of he Diocese TO re-
cover certain Ion Of lapowhch had been conveyed
In trust TO Bishop Hughes by her husband, Catholic
priest, and which have since been claimed and held
by the Bishop Of the Diocese.
STATEMENT OF MRS MARIA BULLoCK-ADDITIoyAL.
The previous mopy Of ibis person being read oy
Mr.. McCue sle deposei as follows: hsd only seen
Mr. Smith ss stated, at my house; net MIN once in
Albany in the street while walking With Mr. and Mrs.
Low; he was walking toward us; recognized him as
the husband Of he woman who ooarded With me;
saw him with Mrs. Smith upon one &C aston subss.
quenty they riding ont in the vicinity of Cats
XIII; took them to be Mrs. Hays asd Mr. Smith 1
knew Der by that name then; be was the same man
whom bs1 met IN Albany, and whom had sup posed
to be her busband they were riding IN sUgle ear
rage; that the lat time / saw them together; !
hso them together be ore toa, oth9r tnaa
have stated TecOlect dressing her BOY upon one
occasion Mr. Smith then present. i. was the first
season she boarded with me- Mrs. Hays was then
standing By ironing table, and seeing nan at the
widow, said . There goes my husband" objected
to invited him In cannot FAY that be inquired par
tculAIly for any one he took sea. in the psrlor;
puf ard rr 10 nd On %
parlor.
O. Did this man before or after taking seat 10 the
psrlor, ask for any one if 80, whom A. l cannot
TecOllect whether he did or not.
Q. What did Mrs. Hays DO after you let this person
in A. AZ be entered she was up stairs arranging her
dress, and then entered the paIlor where be was.
Q. How lOag old they remain together A. They
remained about an hour.
Q. Did you see them when they INST A. did
not.
O. Look at the dsguerreotyps now shown you and
say whose face is. A. should think 1t very good
likeness of Dir. Sath although have very poor eye
sight, yet j think can see the resemblance very
plain.
Cross-examined by Alexander McCue, ESQ., first
saw Mrs. Hays tventy-torte years ago; she had one
child, boy ed Charles one year old; took her
she boarded with me aboat six weeks; saw her next
during the next Spring, about the month of April she
afterw1rd boarded with me about three months;
her next two or three years afterwards she cid not
kill iD stages abe told she had been to tie Tom
of Wyndhan, in the Stae of New. York; she was
going TO Columbia County; saw Mrs.. Hays's hus.
bsDd for the last time year before this my husband
brought him 10 the house; / cannot tell from whom
heard of Mrs. Hayss husband being brought ito
court Mrs, Hays called to see ME the last time she
visited Catsbi at one time say Mre. Hayss hus-
babd come down stairs early in the mornings it must
then have been about Summer the occasion whea |
saw them out riding together it about 10 o'clock
ia the day, twenty lone years ago; passed them
the road they were going toward CatsklI; did not
speak TO either Of them, or salute them in
any way; my eyesight was then good
was not alone, but ear no. tell who was with ms;
did not zee Mrs. Hsyts husband again that day;
think Mrs. Hays was at home when returned; the
think il was windy was beesuse they we're driving
very fast, and did not recognize them enough to
speak; cam OF tell whether it raDed on that day
not; cannot tell how Mrs. Hays was dressed; cannot
Iecollect how the person who was with her was
dressed; think the was Of light compile xlOn. but
having very heavy eyebrows; Judge he weighed
bety cen lao snd $50 fb-what would call that; csst
tell whether his hair was straight or curling; first
saw this dsgueneoype to-day; the plantifs counsel
first shoved it to me; he did not then mention Mr..
Smiths name; should judge, when saw Mr. Smith
il Catsk, that be was forty years old; was never
present at any conversation which passed bet1 een
MIS-. Hays aud her husband she never addressed
bin as her husband In my presence, or spoke OF bin
as her husbands / never heard his name spoken by
Mis- HAYS; when this man was brought before me
by my husband, 1 eSd ina MIS- haySs nus
band, end be said, "ls it possible"
1t being now O'Clock, the case was adjourned to
Monday, the nth, at o'clock p. m.
SUPREME COURT-SpEcIAL TERM-Dec 7-DEcIsIoy.
Elizabeth Roperge, by he next fdend, agt Henry
Romeze. Plaintiff Obtained deoree Of divorce esanst de-
endsIt also attachment for violation OF Injunction pt'hs
ing m her house and her, &c she
row comes IN apo and attachment aud
ali further proceedings be aside Older vacsns Decree
&c, accordingly
MARINE COURY-DEc. 7-Before Judge MCCARTHY.
Personal ESTATE OF WIFE.