New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-05-23

u
bench which he soon left, however evidently prefer.
ing lower place in the synagogue.
Nj Cutting made the opening speech on behalf Of
- d. Sendant He began by urging the jury 10 forget
who the parties 10 the record and N dismiss al
considerations e1raneous to the substantial questions
at ssue whether raised by the spplauding crowd in
the Courtroom by thu peculiar opening Of counsel.
or by the comments of certain newspaper which h 81
published the most belous paragraphs relative 20 the
case No evidence had been offered in support of the
broad statements of counsel stigmstzing Mr. Bowen
as a criminal, man guilty of Peniientlary otcusr.
M Cutting went on TO lay out the plan of hi. sr,u-
ment He intended, first, to clear of the mist which
had gathered around the case second. n state and
review the evidence; third 10 show the jury on how
slight grounds the plaintiff rested; and fourth
70 sugge-; the rule according 10 which the damay
any, should be awarded.
Judge Woodruff asked il he was TO understand that
the defendant intended to introduce evidence at s
Mr.. Cutting replied, that they quite satisfied
with the case II stood they saw no necessity for
Testimony upon Their part.
Mr. OCoior observed that there was on piece OF
evidence which ne had expected to elicit from one OF
the defendants witnesses, and should now like TO in.
troduce IL letter for which he had already laid
the foundation but which he only desired 10 introduce
and identity.
and both be and Mr.. OConor argued the point, Judge
and counsel having first privately read the paper.
Both counsel admitted that this question of
professional practice within the discretion Of the pre-
il was relevant 10 the case as it stood Mr.. . C0nOr
remarked that his own doubts this point had led
him to Its introduction until such time Is II
should clearly be- admissible.
The Court Jaw no reason why less weight should be
given in this Gaze than in any other TO the deliberate
Statements of counsel II was not unusual to allow
the resumption of case under such circumstances as
the preetlt The offer was therefore allowed ~ be
made the question Of it, admi--ibity being left oJen
Mr. Cutting asked that the defendant might be re-
CURED as concition Of the favor granted to admit
that letter sgned Bowen McNamee. previously in
troduced written By the same party as the letter
now refure the Court.
Mr. q COIor had asked no favor, aud wished TO
make no ccmpacts.
Judge Woodruff decided that having exercised
sound judicial discretion in granting the previous
motion he could annex to such permission no condition
unless the nature Of permission of similar charac
ter. The matter suggested was presumptvely easy to
prove.
Mr. O'Conor then offered in evidence copy Of
letter from Henry L. Stone to John Shetto, and read
stipulation on the part of the defendants counsel,
dated October 1852 admitting that II was true
'oSET Cutting objected to the introduction of the letter
in evidence.
After argument the Court admitted the letter which
is a. follows;
Mr.: sHILLErIo-Dea, Sir. You viii; doubtless rencln.
Time sud who r here days Cincinnati
bearing letter Of Introduction TO om Since he left
much larger than would ns,1fay have for clothing and
eircm"ncs and wcpd Ike o. have sem1 it'll.
watch taken of his pocerdnes II he has taken goods he
would probably try and sell them either the or in your
c,y II he should call YOU you could very easily ascertain
where he stopped and should like 10 have you employ some
shrewd Officer visit bis lodgings and ascertain whether he
appeared be IN possession Of property that c. fk ON small
salary oug; to have BY taking little pains he could
yCu should think advisable have his things detained you
viii plea.c and advise by telegraph Pchaps ought
Say that the only thing h. would be ke To- have Of ours
would glove. and suppose should not BE- Justified in in
teerng with anything else You will Of course perceive TINS
requires very delicate infringement as We Ano" nohng
ssiu hr man and would very much regret to lay %
employ experienced police Officer and charge the expense to
US He will ii course say nothing to any one but yoyr'et
Respectfully, your obedient 'eT77nt, rovr
Mr.. Cutting then proceeded to sum up. He read at
length the testimony of Carter, Coles and Hopkins,
and the letter which had been introduced byreopenng
the case Mr. Cutting read the evidence IN exfens0 lie
commended that they establish the facts that the firm Of
Bowen & McNamee had given Mr.. Fowles sort of
general character for ability q clerk-a paper which
was not incompatible with Mr.. Bowen's subsequent
declaration that he not III the habit OF adherlng
strcty to the truth that after he had left for the West
their suspicions were excited by the fact that he
carried six eight trunks. mpch larger than clerk
ON a small salary would be hkeiy 10 nave thaI Sii
Spone wrote 10 Mr. ShietO letter in consequence OF
This suspcion that Mr.. Coles, of the firm ot Wood
Co came the next month on 10 iork 10 trade
with Bowen d McNamee, and Mr.. Bowen took MN
into his private rOOm and fearful that the confidence
Va ~ ~.
tion of Bowen 4 McNamee, which led them TO
employ Mr. Fowlrs, might get them INTO difficulty,
for which he would be- in some measure responsible,
told him of the suspicious circumstances, adding par
ticularly that that all they knew against Mr..
Fowlesis honesty. Mr.. Cutting appealed 70 the Jury
Ia know what man Of them would have done Other
wise After having giyon clerk recommendation
upon the strength of which friend gave him employ
Inent who would not, if circumstance OF grave sus-
melon arose against that cerk communicate II To his
friend That was doing as he would be done by
And how could he do il mon deLcatey than lie dld II
II was confidential COMMUNICATION gwen 10 no one
but Mr. Coles it was made known by Mr.. Coles
only TO Mr. Hopkins Mr. Hopkins took only his book
keeper with him to examine the trunks OF Mr. Fowles
and that examination wa declared to be perfectly SAY
sfactory Mr.. Hopkins declared mat It was perfectly
satisfactory and that lie would write ~ New-iork
about it, There was noeyidence that 1t had gone
nny further That would have been The end
Of it if Mr. Fowies himself had not spread
it oil over the dty, and endeavored 70
a public sentiment which should have its inhu,
ence upon Il Court and jury, and give hum capnai
upon which to commence business. lie had been par
tally successful Mr.. Hopkins had bought INN on
had paid him his vases for some time after ne lett
how much the prosecution did not choose to tell IL
there had been a publicity, Mr.. Fowles was alone
responsible for it. In my event. the prosecution must
make out malice on tie part of Mr.. Bowen to enttle
them to damages No SUCH thing had been done
The ATTEMPT 10 show motive had miseraby ialled.
Nothing had been shovn in the evidence Of the stamp
the wicked counterst to stamp gloves wth-whch
the opening counsel made such flourish with IN MS
opening. The story was ridiculous. II this were
Bowen & McNamee stamp, as tn counsel hau sa,i,
how was il that MrFowles Vas in possession OF IT
That needed explanation. If they made use OF such
a stamp, Why was notMr Fowles put on the stand to
prove * He knewall about it, If anybody. They
dared not do it, The knew that if they did, he w2ua
he I'D him which b. would rather not answer. The
statement made by NJ. Bowen Mr.. Coles was pTiyi-
legged and private it had been made without malice
and there was no evidence to prove that II hid ocGa
stoned any special hmage to MI; soT we had IA 1stsT,
m;red ~ d;s"bss b,n before they received the COM