The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-06-19

have probably written him anonymous letters; do not
consider unmany write such letters do not consider
II work of cowardice 10 write such letters was not
ashamed to sign my name the letters that wrote 70
him; did not fear 10 do II.
Mr.. Clintsn-Who are your
The Court-Mr Clinton, that is not the way to treat
witness.
wiIness-Ny business is at 81 Maiden lane; am an i'm
porter; have never had difficulty with Mr. Knowton;
never knew Of than difficulty with Mr. Knowl-
ton 9 Was the opinion you have stated based on that
Se .d sg.n, SsTs IONS as' cha acc IN
reference 70 that and other matters; ! have beard
others besides Smith j Eastman speak unfavorably
OF M knownon; have heard Mr.. A. 8, Barnes speak
unfsvorably OF him; aside from the church matter,
can't say that have heard any speak against him.
who stated that he did not write theml That remark
about the "head devil was got up by Mr. Knowlton
teri wrote him one; considered II consistent with q
Christian character TO call a Nhesd deyn" think
n Knowon Is one this letter now shown me is the one
wrote 10 Mr. Knowlton wrote this letter. think about
two years ago; think sent by post; don't recoect
how many pages my letter occupied can't say If my
write anony nous eerss It not don't rec oIlect Of
writing any 0tf er anony nous letter; will swear
that have no hostile feelings against Mr. Kuowlon my
feelings towards him are perfectly kind, lambike and
Christian.
cultyp
Mr. Clinton objected the question: and went
length censurng the course taken by the other counsel
The Court overruled the question.
EVIDENCE OF MR.. DANIEL p. BARNARD.
I am q counsellor at law reside In Brooklyn; was
counsel in the cause OF Warner vs. Griffin for the plaintiff
was at Court on Tuesday, the 2sh Of October for the
the part Of the plaintiff young gentleman on the other
side said he not ready-waned 10 get other COUNSEL
Wednesday morning the 2sth Of October met the addi
tona counsel there which had precedence came
and az was expected 70 last all day left tho counsel on
and not yet prepared 70 on with it, the cause
finally on the 10th Of Nov; never served
with q notice OF substitution In that case
Cross eXamined-On Wednesday morning the 6ckelu
bad the preference there discussion about
adournpg IT. have recollection OF being present
the caue for day or two 80 Is 70 time for pre-
paration; was not there the 9th Of Oct know that
Dr. Burdel In the only from my minutes which
chow he was witness; did not see him TO my know
ledge; did not know him.
EVIDENCE OF MR+ JAHEs r. HALL.
am In the firm of VIM. Hall h Sons, New York; have
known Mr. Grant FOR eight years have seen him frequent
y both In Buffalo and New York would believe him
der OATH not under OATH he man Of good standing
Cross examined-I am well acquainted with him; our
families VISIT during the last two years have seen him q
good many times he has had his letters addressed to
last ght went his bail; have been Intimate with him
during the last two years. he has been at house TO
several times ne nas been IN ;ne patent al !ne
have heard Mr. Serbia fpeak well OF him. heard him say
he believed M Grant to be an honest straightfor ward
witness; the subject brought up by his reading the
evidence In The BHa1D about Mr.. Grants character.
EVIDENCE OF eKN. WILLIAM HALL.
lam member Of the nrm my son. the last
III.
years. know hts character have lent him money; had
other business transactions with him; always found him
honorable, honesr and truthful. @ Would you believe
Mr. Clinton objected 10 the question: saying SUFFICIENT
acquaintance had not been shown to exist between the
parties.
The Court admitted the question afser preliminary
question.
M clinton told the Court similar question on their side
The Court showed the difference between the cases
Mr. Clinton still maintained bis assertion and objected TO
witness-I would believe him under oath and would
believe bis statements when not under OATH Mr. Grant has
Cross essmipei-I have bad bui little Sussisc,s trans.
scti ,ns with Mr.. Grant
Mr. Clinton again applied 10 have the testimony of The
witness struck out
The Court refused the application.
EVIDENCE OF JOHN n. SHERMAN.
reside In Fourth ply stefan; have known
Mr. Grant for about three years he patient OF mine
have resided In the same house with him. have heard
people SPEAK Of bis cnarac err would believe MN under
Cross examined-I Am regular physician and surgeon;
have lived In Fourth avenue year; my patients are
real diseases; never have done In my NE. informed
Mr. Edwards of what Mr.. Grant know about this CASE n
would inform he counsel OF H. whoever they might be;
have done before; first know Mr.. Grant about thu
wa, = The nG %s q on. Of my .
with her. Q Docs Mr.. Grant follow Mrs. slocum where
ever che goess A. You are an impairment fellow; will
proper question and viii answer IT. have put do i'm
pertinent lawyer, before, and win put you down.
The Court would NOT allow the question.
witness-I have heard several members OF the Amer
Institute speak Of Mr.. Grant, and all spoke well Of
him; never heard any person speak III Of him; Was
ndi ,ted for perjury but he District Attorney would
not LET the case come 10 trial. he abandoned the
EVIDENCE OF MR.. JAMES SMITH.
am merchant; my place Is No 40 Barlng slip; am
as years Of age am acquainted with stephen Kuowon;
have known him well; think he well Known any
man In New York; consider his character good as
that Of any other man. would believe him under oath;
belie i'm kiV as NV thar ma
The cross examination olicitoi nothing new.
EVIDENCE OF Mr.. CYRUS r. SMITH.
am State Senator; a lawyer by profession; know
Mr. Knowton; knew about the church difficulty in which
Mr.. KDowton connected; / would have no hesitation
In believing him under oath his character Ia unexcep
tonable for all know; never heard anything against his
character.
Gross ,examined-I never heard any complaint abou,
the condition OF Mr.. Knowlton's mnd have heard that
he was h~ty in temper was not intimately acquainted
with him before thai trial.
EVIDENCE or MN. BENJAMIN CUNNING.
have known Mr. Kno ton for three years known him
intimately; his character IL good 20 far ~ know would
believe him under oath an when Ia not under oath,
quickly one way as another
EVIDENCE OF JOSIAH RICH.
am merchant In this city; have been In busiuc.s
twenty Year,; have known Mr. knowltop fifteen years;
during most OF that time he has been nv partner; would
not the least hesitation In believing him under oath
when not under oath bis character unmpeacnable
far a. know.
sometimes get confused his recollection OF words some
times indistnct and confused he sometimes has ndisnct
recollection Will sometimes confused
eve his mental ideas apt 10 be confused he will fire.
quenily have conversation and then draw inference
from himself and afterwards consider that inference as
part Of the conversation.
Re direct g, aminauonI believe Mr. Knowlton is per-
fccty honeet but he IL sometimes confused In bis IDEAS
he should tell conversation that he had hal with
anybody would der that part OF what he told the
conversation his deductions upon II, instead Of
part OF the conversation.
EVIDENCE OF FREDERICK A. LANE.
I am an attorney and counsellor atls~; have known
Mr. Knowon well for three four years. have been his
counsel; would have hesitation 10 believe him under
OATH when under OATH have had occasion 10
his memory; always found u good never found that
confusion Of ideas that the last witness spoke or
Cross examlned-T was Mr.. Knowlton's counsel In the
church difcuty commenced two years ago. took part
with him.
The counsel for the claimant offered 10 call other wit
neeees 70 the same point, but the Court restricted him 70
the Eve already called.
The Court then declared the case closed.
Mr. Cnion-After protracsed a. this, which
has run over period OF four months during which
hundred witnesses have been called, In not expected
that the counsel can be prepared 10 sum up without
little time for preparation.
The Court inquired 10 the intention OF the counsel
regard 10 the California commission asked for for pur