New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-08-25

,hrnnch fear Of Iidculc upon the' souau as vel
his pT, youslg expressed wee IN t'sHi" ~ Va,
hsyf hcc, d.si,ors that toe al 81 sn"Ud oe heP q
. o. a,ch a b,pothesis am not prepared 10 -,
,. ~ n"" motive. Bat secreey and puohe,t'
ssnnot e1..t together II the n. i've was sToA-
enough TO iBcuce an entie ssos'9u " '"@ ~ NY
60 "a family and Intimate Trends, Al Is cedalh!
iIoll ns iary that ne should speak oft 10 mere
~. ;stsnce as il IL were known 'hl2g. AZ I
~, ,nrn o. the WRIT may parry deadly thrust So
Ell, saiiston OF woros lay give all entirely dinsf'
- E,sction 10 the pnrport and meaning OF language.
The subieo, Of conversation may be Remembered o..
there the pecise phrsseoosy Is material, the ip'' ~
time the iDErmity OF tue human memory ine -;
Huence Of tie Inauguration, the harmony y, Wv -
consis,epcy Of the statement reported WITH tl' coz,
duct Of tue party otherwise indicated ar
weighed by the Cour; 10 deternlning Tue 90, ~:
Of mistake Mr.. Wilson testiisd ,hs. NC Xaaoe.
Burdei in Biodway tue .eeoLd How is Mrs
Cunnin eham, Mrs. Burdel that Is 10 Dc The
The reply lie was sory wa, Mrs' D .l leu
dislike expressed oompo,'s VII" ANAL particle 10
IN lhe case, gu" :, an IL" would change the whole
.snnr n2tbe phrase. Mr. Knoglion dePo'el 10 con-
versatisp with the Doctor, ID Decevo, 49, =. ,ba AZ
-, an exchange Of property, When the de-
IN ieie'v ste ~ sone little trouble In HI: family
md I'D he cid Of know whether his vile would %
;,i;na N ,ier the decd" There was a difficulty at
tbis t;sas aTispg from Mrs. CGonlnghams clam OF
49, and no doubt it was mentioned to Mr.. KnOwl.
son. hut with tie evidence of Mr. Rlch, his partner
Cor yesrs that his recollection Of words Is some
times ndi-.iDct aud coLfuseo -" ne Is very apr -
detail bis differences az par; o. tae conversation
here Is fair room for question whether the word
wife" was used, or the witness drew an inference
10 that effect from the drift o. the conversation;
Catharine Lamb who had been IN the service 0,
claimant M a e yious period for three years. testhed
tbst some lime in October when DR.. Burdel was at
tendiIp 10 her teeth the claimant SAID she was 60
Ing 70 get married to DR.. BuIdei aud, 70 quesIon
of Se witness whether it was so, ne answered les,
and Won can come and live With me- This witness
Tins asserts free and easy disclosure OF an intention
70 copsunn ate marriage, which was carefully con-
cesed ON Helen Cunningham, and made known to
Augusta under the threat OF killing her II she divulsad
il. In this connection may cote the declaration OF
The claimant mentioned by DIR. +. A. Roberts, that
She "wOuld not marry such man as BurdeP' =
"would not marry man that loathed her, An OBJ
seyaton of that character is Inconsistent even with
pretended marriage, aud is not likely TO have beer
made subsequent 10 the wedding, though it may have
occurred before.
iCJ Among the documents found in Mr.. Eckels pos.
session. and claimed By Mrs Cunningham, was VIII
ting in these words:
Harvey b. rdel, Of the City aud County of New York,
being duly dePSs: and .y tina. he hs. not up to this
bis 6 a fs s,s ar spSes p pIeSoS q.
to hs S;s o9sey TO- '' HARVEY BUaDELI
tssuppcssd that tai. paper, signed ten days before
the alleged contract Of marriage, was designed as an
ss,urance to the intended wife sgainst hostile will
But will could not affect dover in cal estate and as
to personally the wfes rights could be defeated ct
any moment by q testamentary instrument. II new
will was made at this date previous will whether
false or genuine would be imperative. can see no
connection between this paper and contemplated
marriage supposlg that the parties understood the
law on THIS subject. lfthey did not understand the law
IL il ppossibe (" safely the design of the
paper. 1t was found ia Mr.. Eckels secretary, but
how ii to bis possession is not known. He might
have proved that but he was not swOrs and under all
the circumstances of this case, shall make no pre-
sumption Of lawful possession because it was dscev
cred his custody One fact stands out in bold relief
ON the face of the document refers in explicit terms
10 the possibility of DEATH and to the presentation of
forged will; it seems to originate from an apprehen
sen that On his decease some fraudulent paper might
appear disposing of his property Death and forgery
are the two subjects of this extraordinary writing
Ill. Although the evidence thus far In support OF
the allegation Of the claimant is entirely insufficient to
identify DIR. Burdell with this marriage, still, on
full consideration of all tue circumstances, 1t Is prob
able he was married. it, instead Of finding reason to
question there should be concurrence OF facts tend
ing to establish tue marriage, then tue defects OF the
direct evidence might thus be supplied by the indirect
and collateral proofs 1t becents necessary therefore
10 manure still further whether the conduct treat.
mept and declarations Of the parties were concoTdahs
With the marital relation, or were repugnant 10 ",
and whether previous intimacy and Intercourse rem
dered marriage probable. c.,,
about three years ago. and that Or buraeh sls.ea
after the decesse of the first husband Hannah Con-
IAN testifes TO circumstances occurring IN November,
N and state ments in reference thereto by the caim
AT in July 1856, which show an early intimacy.
There il no question that up to time in the Sum-
msr OF 1856 their harmonious relations he'd not been
dnturbed and that the decedeut spoke OF the clam-
ant siaby in the highest terms He expressed the
belief that she was rch praised her aud her family,
her capacity and her management, dc was with her
At Saratoga over two weeks in August, 1852 he in-
toduced her TO bis friends, he accompanied her 20
nsrtcs walked arm in IN the streets, and haaly
not only took her into his house. but on the Let OF May
1856, leased her the prersises his wnoie cohdact
showed confidence and ateniion hliss Nao Ness says
abe knew of their engagement, ald was understoou
by both parties she should DO the brides ald one ue-
scrbea their intercourse as invariably tender and aztec
tomato excepting some unpeasantness mentioned
by Mrs Cunning ham shortly after the LET OF Sepem-
Der; and then within two weeks she requested her
10 witness a secret marriage, said he had come
to his senses and they were going to be married Ptl-
vatey and we're going III the Sfrog TO Europe. Dr.
w. Ii. Roberts, who was frequent vIsltor az the
house observed "no'hing but kindness 10 the mu.
tual depoftment Of the parties The claimant stated
10 Mrs Denison 10 the Summer tia: they were "en-
gagged" but asked her To keep il secret" lie Sep
fember she told Officer Moore she vas " his wife"
and Officer Little " that she wac bis wife by every
te-that he bad wrOnged her." 10 September or De-
tober che spoke 10 the Rev. Dr. Beecher OF the en-.
gagement but said her children were opposed to 1t.
In count Of the complaint FOR breach OF promise
the date .. the alleged promise is laid In February,
1850, tire agreed time for contamination the Sum
mer of 1885,, and the breach can or about tie month
of Jaly, 1856" In another count the TIME for
summation is when he should be thereunto after
ward requested and reques; averred September
Is 1856. This complaint was verified under oath by
the claimant. Whether the differences between her
and The decederi arose out Of the charge Of stealing
he preferred against her, or from Jealousy on her
mart. or from both these causes, there can be no
doubt at all of the existence of serious diff.
culty, and that it occurred in the Summer
Of 1850. Nor is there aoy to suppose
the parties were ever restored to their original rela-
ton. They went together to Saratoga the Goth of
July, and this looks Ike renewal Of intimacy, but he
remained there only three days, and the next we
Know is tire par alton of the papers liz the breach
Of promise suit, and the vipen oaforesk IN Septem'
her in regard 10 abstracting note from his safe.