The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-11-20

| O. AK you whether in Boston, since 20. have bee
that Is living in the house my husband anu siste
and MYSELF Mr. and Mrs. Burtis called there.
, nj ,h nave a stated reason Tor not ans.
may be perverted or msrepresented II you are willhn
sscIce enough TO state what street you lived in %
bottoni wish you would do 10.
strangers, it would be Immediately know Who We we're
ihis Is so particularly the respectable parts OF the
| city; live the State House
Judge Roosevelt repeated the accommodation TO the
| witness to answer the questions.
Mr. Brady objec ed TO the recommendation.
Mr. Gut'Ig (wih warmth) MAY my tongue DO palsiei
believe to be guilty escape the punishment due TO their
crimes han that should ark this woman TO damn hope
and intentions that afe pure and holy.
Mr.. Brady did not want those dramatic outburst
IN case Ike this He iniimated that though Rachel
engagement had cosed here he did not want hi
| learned friend take her place
Mr. Cutting TO wisness)- )-Havc you stated and Is
Il not fact that no minutes Of your evidence
taken in the Grand jury roomr A. Yes, sir have
signed my name to any evidence there do r.coec.
q their being read TO me- have not spoken you ir
Cutting or the District Att torney since Friday last.
This closed the testimony of Mrs Connolly and ON her
leaving the stand Mr. Cutting told the witness TO give
NE, azores w where shs could be found in case he
Greene and others we're to be put the stand
Mr. Drady utterly objected TO all these dramatic repre-
kehia'hns which were got up for effect.
The next witness called for the prosecution was Rev.
Henry T. Montgomery Sthe clergy man who married Mr..
ana Mis- Connoliy, in philadephis) )--Witneas--
minister oths Gospel of the Church
in Aprii 1858 resided at tho Of Tenth Fitz
my parish was that of All Saints, Moyamonsing pro-
duce the parish register Of that church. in April 1885,;
The 18th married VIM Peter Connolly To Margaret Mary
Murphy this IL the iginal entry; have private ac-
account book, where his name is entered che date
responds with that in the parish registry; Certificate
handed 10 witn ss the endorsement that Il mnc the
signature II mine; the word April IL written over the
word May the alteration Is correct one; l almost
certain 1t Is not in my handwriting; have the
slightest recollection OF the transaction.
Crosse xap,ined by Mr. BradyIt Is obvious that the
INK used In the alteration IL of different color the
other have not the slightest recoe ,tion of the aera
ton tn date being made by me- have recollection of
correcting marriage certificate after the night that
gave H. nor have any specific recollection doing Il al
the time have not, TO my knowledge either Of
being httie near sighted, am unable to say whether
that is he person.
Mr. Brady would with witness to be allowed 70 look al
her closely TO whether she is the person hal
married.
Witness to the Ccur'-The endorsement was m ade by
To Mr.. CutngWhat impression does the difference Of
color in the ink make your mnd A. IL Is barely possible
% e ny e o s sna
torsement is shade darker than the other words
"Wispl" and . Connolly"
o. IL there greater less difference shade between
tho letter "P," and "Willam" and "Counolly" than
ths,e Z between the words "April' and Mayr" A.
The differences in shade between the letter P and the
other words is think, greater than tho difference be-
tween the word " Aprip' and the word May
Mr.. Cutiirg-Bc goJd enough 10 look at the words
Margaret N. Murphy on the endorsement and 30
April 1883 in your register and say what difference
parish register IL slightly darker than the other.
Mr.. Montgomery thin conducted into the Office Of
the District Attorney to see Mrs Connolly and decide
Apii 1853 Mrs Connolly had, however, left the Office,
and he did not
me on the 10Th Of May, 1858.
examined by Mr.. Cuttng-I am the apothecary Of the
New York hsssr'A keep mesarSl0esal table Of the
seeu,or should have % called H.ni.m T ,ass % pots
q the barometer, the thermomc.e .er. aud the wind
Ds hIes 1mei Il, day nine ,s i'm, IL the morning
1885, there was rain; cannot tell the state of tn
streets; have stated since the 9Th the o.h
on "a Of Se dny anS
clear part Of the day tbs 18th Il part clear
believe, all the night; the 18th the viii vas mort
east; II wns on a THURSDAY.
Gross examined BY Mr.: Dradywas not in the habit
do not know whether the streets impesicd
get out AZ Sasaa rs .ree sga rnt sn s
there was fog an6 mst all the day do not know vhcih
q IN the street. were npeded BY Ice on that day
rior Court record Of judgments, as Yellowstone by
Joseph L. White for asa %, damages and cost,
summon snd complaint 10th Noyem Der 1s54-ned on
the I'D rceember, 1854 which execution issued
AID was returned by tho Sheriff the I'D February
1858, with return endorsed -satisded I'D Scbrua
~ 1855; anda record Of judgment, at suit of Richard W.
Horn and others, sgans sdbey II. stuart toe $i4I ST.
damsges and costs. lea Goth March, 1855.
Tbefe evidence Counsel said he would follow up by proof
Of assignment Of salary in advance 70 debts which
Judge stuart owed.
Mr.. Brady n,ma'ed that IL the prosecution wanted
prove poverty against Judge Stuart lie supposed they
might prove he not aware, however, Of the
nexoa between poverty aud crime and he supposed that
any and all proof intended 10 show tbat Judge stuart
was In state Of fecunary necessity altogether in
admissible.
Mr.. Cutting informed the Court that he offered this ,es
tmoDy so as To cut of argument which might DO
made TO The jury - 70 The improeabhy q the story
that with large salary and not IN necessitous
circumstances, would have received $500 10 procure
noie rroeqVi in his own Court against criminal lie
harssed that he had the sheriff at his heels with
ons for 'he paltry sum Of sal4 and s4 H. wanted TO
he improbnby of Judge stuart bsing actuated By any
such motive as the sum Of $500
hr Bracy recognised that II was not altogether
but y vas improper g introduce evidence 70 meet any
Iorfibe Argument stil he would the that
10 such argumen, would be pa, forward.
Judg. Kooseye.t--Ihs case depends for i's leading
fact on the testimony Of one witness, who Il not
,ainy has net been & entirely gnspet.ed character
Every Circumstance therefore which In any way g.
70 give probability 10 her statement H. Il seems 70
rot only admissible but almost necessary and even r
dlspensnble II Il 10 h0wn hat the accused wa har
ratfed nnd pursntd by creditors ~ tAat time L might
,aifs something IKE probability that he TESTIMONY q
bcfs y true or II might, ~ al events b. weighed
circumstance with all the Il strikes me therefore,
hat tho evidence Il admissible. Testimony n The Kind
stsn by this Ms. Connolly of necessity requires
haps Entirely, consistent with itself
hr Brady achnoWisdged the record. but excepted 70
iho admistion - the evidence.
James Spires, examined by Mr Cutiing--Am mer
chant knew sydney H. strart ~ sight, hal never any
sigfment of his salary 10 esvance paid %
ne, and returned the paper To tho Comptroller
- taxes The who paid Juege stuaTts salary this
'he j.; o July, 1865; held ss75 ~ h salary for
note which discounted with his IT, got the
note ffor Judge 0thYop, The former police magistrate
had IaY 1915 u Judge stuarts that order
gave up n the Comptroller Il given 10 Judge 10
fhrop ana he gave Il = me; discounted that order
Mr. Brady objected 70 the testimony. Judge Lothrop
vas IA court kncw all the facts and might be called.
Judge Roosevelt stated he would sirise ont The whole
this testimony except that the witness hal order
for 1873 and received t.
Witness reCallcd-l fecsiytd paper from Judge -
ibrop.
Q lid you al any time, and when. obtain any money
rom the Com ptoIcr and for the salary q Judge
STUART
objected TO- admitted and ercoption tatcn.
wftners-f received from the famptFoIlsr tss. which
amount advanced to Judge Iothrop d. not know tos
vbst object u the Lot ~ July 1850 delivered
written order for such 10 the Comptroller that written
lsIer bought by OF Judge Io,hrop % the sih o.
narch.