The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-01-16

W..
when the said Ccnor need his reply and occu
piec two hours therein AMI the cause stood over
until this morning. that his deponsrt argues at consd
cradle length the exceptions to the refusa the
TO ALLOW the question put CRANKY Cacra for what
purpose he vsited Mrs Robnon refer ed to in said
OConors affidavit ard that neither al that time nor in
the reply OF said Concr fa he hao proceeded up
to the tin OF adjournment any objection made to
the corr ec'nes Of the bill Of tons this respect
thai on Saturday afternoon, the 18th ns about hall
past ocle ck the usual this deponent for quit
ting his Office said affidavit Of OC and the order
show cause tor yesterday morning left ut this depo
nents oce that the trial CT this this deppnen.
did or to show y he sao Grapby Cacrsf the aduiter
Gus habits of said Calcra and raid offer o7eruled
and exception taken stated said proposed bill OF
exceptions. This deponent sssened to the amendment
saio OConor, striking laid exception from the bill be-
cause he oid not consider the vi al with hope
OF more speedy sett ement Of the KILL that the oojec-
ton on the trial to the question put to Cacraft otto
1,355, For what purpose did you visit herr" (msanng
not ade by the said Cacrsft; that this deponen well
rcolects tie and to confirm his recollection
in this respect has referred report of the trial aade
with unusual general accuracy by the reporters of the
HERALD at page 90, to report the trial publ cd by
strnRer TcwHseud 65 and has caused references
made to the report of the New York Dni.g Times
of January TO- 1852 and report OF the New Yok Ersn
ing Post OF January Q, 1852 by every of which
ports 1t appears that the digestion to said question
made by the said OConor and not by The said Calat
and This opponent has able to find report Of the
said trial which states differently that this ponent
grets the necessity OF opposing his ement thus direct
ly 10 that Of said OConor and ud hesitate So
although sustained by the examinations he has made
and by his clear recollection if be had had
cason 10 observe the argument o the and prev
ousy the insccuracy OF said oConors recollec ion
reference to the facts occurring said trial; thai
as one instance OF such inaccuracy, he states
that at folio 1877 Of the appears the following
admission: II ifs counsel admitted tina, Mr. Forrest
arrived from that tour in company With Mrs Forrest
the 18th OF July, lSs4 that one If the amend nens
proposed by sand 0Conor 70 strike out said admiss
that the settles If said bill said OC not only
denied having made said admission bu offered TO
make affidavit that such admission had been msde
recurring however, to Judge Oak eys notes, which
not remarkably full said admissin found insert
therein and the admission was therefore ordered
stand as matt of the hill that in ro erence 10 the
statement of said OConor that his attention given
to avoiding exceptions the trial of said aud that
with this view he repeatedly during the rial omitted
avail himself Of valuable evder allowed thu Court
statement frequently mace by said OCcn,r, and now
confirmed by his OATH this opponent states that with
bis attention thus called to the subject he has been
quite unable recoect such abst. the
part Of said Conor, but to The contrary thereof ths
i'm preston the mind of this deponent by the
of said OConor the tia Of said
very vivid that said O'Conor determined u
get verdict in said by the OF any
II at the said OCopor consde I'd allowable This
deponent does recoect that sad 0Conor declined to
read under the exception Of This dep mem, the test
opy taken commissi which Jude Oakley de:ided
that he might read, but this cep supposed that
such omission owing only The po eledge that
the decision could Lot sustained but that the st
mony from it, scorrlous and til by character, would
damage the pon6ent thu liant and this
opponent refers to the numerous except us nov utao
ed IN the bill settled for proof o. the fnct that il said
0Ccncr's attention he states to avo sing
exceptions he signaily ccessful in npi-h
ing bis purpose. Ano this deponen further that
the original bill OF exceptions pr posed 10 this
intended to present and this dep believes did
sent, substan iay accurate history oi the far
it proposed review the same that prepa ing
it the HERALD report of the tIial much relied on,
from its known general accuracy conceded, as
this depoDent believes, 0v said OConor, and fir IL
belief thai Justice Oakley would prefer this report in
settling the hil 70 his imperfect that it is
quite possible that in preparing and revising 40 voumi
nous bill in short tre may have arsed,
but the statement Of said OCopor thai the proposed bill
OF exceptions contained great humber Of points Of
Law not raised at the trial. and for which there
preence color in anything which occurred at the
trial is untrue. Equally untrue is the statement in
said affidavit that well understood early in the
trial ut any time the trial, " that il questions
relevant to the issue and tending degrade the
witness put eyaraiyati it the prvi
ege Of the vii Only and not the right Of the party
listed but the contrary, Justice OAKLEY at FL 373 of
the bill as now settled expressly refused to instruct
the witress Anna Flowers and this refusal fur her
that of the large number of amendments propos
ed BY respondent to appellants bill, very much
the largest portion we're disposed Of By agree
ment between The said OCenor and this deponent:
that many Of said amendm ents agreed by this
deponent because of their utterly trivial character
many abandon ed by said Conor for Of
own that those which remained settled by Justice
Oakley and that the argument of the b nov to
be arrested and amendment proposed by Mr. OConor
and agreed to BY this dcponent to be stricken from
the any other amendment made, this deponent
shall ask for settlement of the entire case in the
settlement of which il stands this deponent
j. VAN BUREN,
Sworn before me this 18th day of January, 1856.
The Chief Justice here read hs own minutes Of the tes
tmony of Capt CRANKY Cacraf by which appeared that
the witness was aked who the was he went
TO and the witness objected to because in
wolves his private affairs; it woman; he did not
collect her name. Q BY Mr.. Van Buren, DO you know
Mrs. Robinson. Witness declines answer the Court
directs him to A. do she resided months
ago in Watts street. &c. q. For what purpose did you
visit her OBJECTED to, and excadcd.)
Mr. tnpR ur Tho ho1a npf ~ ;co1as bo<ho
cour eel or Capt calcra the witness, objected to the
witness answering
Tho Chief usiice-It does appear that to last
question Calcraft objected. Al that do in set
ting this exception is send copy Of these minutes
the Court of General Term.
Mr. OConnor said 1t was undoubtedly true that the
plaintiff bill Of exceptions tent to his office and
has lily glanced at by him. He asked bete proc than
az swer was made by the witness.
The following extract from The pamphlet report Of the
tis IS published By the HERALD Law reporter,
in part by Mr.. OConor and in part by Mr. Van Buren,.
Ii is on the crossexamnation Of Cep CRANKY Cslcrsft
@ Where were going that EVENING" A. going
friend IN me upper part Of the CITY, but the name Of the
person do not think necessary 10 nop: decline to
Mr. Van Buren, said there was contradiction betwesn the
WI meas and Garv as TO tine md nc insisted on his right
thier Justice Captain Why do you decline to
wnessI involves my private business and don't wish 10
1tie Justice Business Of what charscsr All witnesses
bound 10 unless would lend degrade them.
Wess asd be had no di.,c lecoiec Ion OF WHERE was
affect him be is not bound 10 when the is
relevant TO the issue.
Mr. Van Buren said that he felt all along The embarrass
ens that wud arise from those nqures out he submitted
that similsr questions permitted be
tepdans Witnesses. he entitled ths INQUIRY
Abe shiet Justice ruled that the
10 decline answering unless the visit would SUBJECT him
Disgrace.
q What was The of the perscn you bad 10 A.
really at this period Of time, doO recoiec q Was il
vcznans II was women. Qaughter) Q. Was
1t woman whom you had seen bel, ref
vi ness TO the Court Am Obliged TO answert aughtsrl
Chief Justce-You must understand, sir. that
aiq
would ter 10 disgrace you.
WITH ess--1hep, tiose grounds Secline answer.
Mr. Nan Buren, said he unders God the rule the
bound TO unless subjected him criminal
prosecution and IL certainly would be he defendants
vantag IT, this period of the trial other
TIE Chief Justice said Mr. Van Buren,
not then recoee witness who had declined
thoec grouDdA
Mr Van Bureu-Apna Flowers asked her stealing
and 10 her having had , child.
pleased and she answered As TO the circumstance Of her
wing had child she had voluntarily told that and therefore
there question OF degradation about II.
MI OCono said the rule subsan italy laid down 10 the
outset Of the trial in regard to Mr. Forrest very little
econ of society would show that OF this
description would tend 10 the ends OF JUSTICE He submit
that question any hing apau cunt "a IT,