, 1860-11-15


hearing in so short time. One side s.ys il
cnnot be got through in that time, the othc.
The complainant's counsel suggest special
term. The only time for such term would
lie in January, as tho Court sits in Grundy
connty in February and in VIII and; ! Du Page
| III the tlrce months following. ~
Tn the part Of defense, it is said that two of
ile counsel cannot be here in January, when
| Mr. Farnsworth will fe In Washington and
one OF his associates will b. engaged. In an i'm
portant trial. Great weight is to be given to
the complainant that they cannot get through
Tic hearing, and it will prejudice their. rights
i;thc case is left unfinished. The above rea-
sons seem sufficient why aspecial term cannot
lc called in January. -
In tAc midst Of ali these difficulties; the on
II way seems to be to commence tha: trial ut
once. The counsel hiding, the hearing ma"
te got through with lie thought thet parties
might be ready for IN opening By FEiday
| mvrning. :;-
| Mr.. Miller said lis associates in The case ate
At Chicago, in an important trial just drawing
TO close lie thought that Monday would
te the earliest day. !:
Of lis brother Judges carry on the issf week
| tr two Of the term III Grundy, the period OF
this term may be tins extended, by stipulation
| Of parties to such effect H.. !;
M Sean e,nc Le
Mr. Miller dill not like to be understood to
hare waived right Of, the part Of the COM
plainant to ask continuance should such
seem desirable.
The Court understood it; aud the casc in
this shape TESTS, to be taken up on Monday.
| The Court thought that argumentat Oh mo-
lions might be made this week, to expedite
business, and.to this Saturday is 10 be devoted,
Mr. Deckwiih giving notice that then he should
bring up questions as to the suppression OF
certain dispositions. +.
| Mr. Farllsworth, OIL part of defence, said
| that the question as to the suppression Of the
deposition of Margaret O'Iara, or O'Harrow,
could he argued now. f1c understood the
witness was now in Chicago, and can be pro-
| duccd there is no reason why the deposition
! may not be Suppressed :
Mr. Brownin,, said there was IN affidavit as
10 St. Louis Witnesses, containingsevere stEic-
did not sec why this should be used. lie
asked that it be suppressed, and publication
| restrained.
Mz. Miller for complainant, said that the d.
position Of Ellen q. Clarke, now file, con-
taiias most outrageous imputat1ons on CON-
characterize them in tcru1s sufficiently severe
This is still OIL Tile. The taking oflthcsc de-
positions was deferred until the last of the
present month, and without knowledge Of the
PARTIES tn our own part; no notice WAS given
lis whereby We could obtain the same We
hare been attempting to guiu this knowledge.
We found that the woman Clark resided in st.
Louis; that she had resided in Chicago; WAS
! woman over 10 years Of age; was prostitute
by Practice IN ahortionist by profession and
was as known aud employed in Chicago. We
have asecrtaincd that these depositions were
taken, that she Was in charge Of detective Of
iceEs, and kept concealed while the deposit
tlons were taken. We moved to remove her
deposition from the files, aud the court ruled
In our flror. They still pressed the relevancy
Of the deposition and its competency, but dc-
clined an argument upon the point They
hare right to enter this deposition ut any
time again, and otter it to the jury, and then
place us under the disadvantage of,bc1ng only
able to plead its incompctcncy.
The wcman Ean,cs WAS not under that name
willie in Chicago. but known Is Molly BceIc
She went to St Louis from Chicago on the
sQth day Of November to have her deposition
taken there under the name of Marion Eamcs,
there llade the deposition now in the hands Of
tue counsel. returned to Chicago, and on the
evening Of Friday 9th inst, left Tor Buffalo via
Cleveland, with e. NJ. Hawks, osteneibiy to ~
South, declaring that she secretly went to
avoid being witness In this case, by her own
statement,
Now this may be put In, and is still in their
hands, and we nlrst now make the motion to
re-cxalninc these witnesses. It Is no morc
than just that VIC put in these attidayits as to
the nlanner Of taking these dcpositions. If
thdtacts are not true, let these counsel put
them on trial and VIC will meet them. make
tl.is melton to save our rights.
The Court understood the motion Of Mr.
Browning to refer merely to the publication Of
the affidavit and not to its being; taken from
the files. He should make the order.
The nature Of this arldaylt. Is pretty we'll
rFYtfS nj .1tkN and $to 1,,$ef 40 1eVn
ments in the same connection arc Of a most 1e-
markab1c character The women Molly Becbc
1t seems YVES j prostitute at an establishment
on South Clark street, Chicago. She went to
St. Louis Oh the 30tl Of October, in company
with q leading Chicago detective, and there
gave her full deposition against complainant
under The name Of Marian Eames. Returning
thence to her Chicago establishment, she 1nost
secretly prepared to break M and take per-
mancnt leave. She was in debt, however, and
her creditors were watchfuL They went to
the house on South Clark street, but it was
denied that sue w:.s there.
The creditors, however, one Of them man
named Richbcrger, wouiI not be denied, and
forcing his wny in, discovered the girl Bcche
alias Eamcs packing her trunk. She then Maid
him his ducssof $50, and implored him not to
tell that she was in town, for she had 81 got to
leaye 70 leaye t. avoid being: . witness on 4
great trial. That night, Friday of last week,
shc lca this city by why Of the Pittsburgh, Ft.
Wayne q Chicago railroad for Cleveland, saw
Ing "shc promised to 50 South"
These developments arc making quite stir,
and 1t is understood that the suppressed a1lid:l.
yit Of complaint Inns . bearing on the same.
It Is but just to the defence to state that thev
distinctly dlsayow layiu, authorized the tax
In, OF the deposition of the woman Eamcs.
After tho inteEroSatories were sued out, Mr,
Bcckwith. defendants senior counsel, having
received further information, told Mr. c. i.