New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-11-22

pon,' ep M David.on) he wen, with 70 Yrou,
Ieeed 70 place opposite where he tho genera
in carry bach to N.. ype de-. 40, NOV 1
o. ssn,s%.I s1%Ss V e f a:' a vPe
house IN Bsscker street be tell whether cave Ia
zee MI. vsps % no.' he cu99o, ,hs he him
for Mis-. Culbe that boarded there he aever -sa M Es
be room and Es ye. Ss sre cen on me- s 'e so n ca
been h Miss Vape room but never ha, been In Miss cber
but he knows there was door leading from ~,
Redirect resrredIe cannot tell the number Of the pl.t
Front street. but could go TO Il time has been 1, h
Plaintiff recalled Question by counseI-At .ha,,iy.
did you ls., hsye Intercourse with your wife,
objected BY Mr. Clinton; objection sustained by the covn
s yy ySs sessS not Court ps.' '''H'''
Coun.e for plaintiff here rested the
Mr. Clinton then opened for the defense. lie remarked tn,
this va. one OF ne nost eAsord1s,y ea'e ever br2as, mo
Of justice. The plaintiff has evidently In company sih
Mr. Elliott entered INTO this Po.ecui.on from motive. u pen
attributed 70 the defendant; The motive. plsin sad il
could sssy be seen Whist phiaIthr1pt NJ Elliott w1teep
house The counsel had hoped that ths Elliott you'd hay.
That this Knight Eant philanthropy had been divorced
from his m IN the State OF Msschuset, T iaysinsd
wretch also msde love to this woman by letter which lct,s
in possession Of counsel Brown give. this into the
hands Of this Elliott matter Of speculation The Jary
hs according to Browns evidence the. was nothing what
lead suppose that defendant hs ee
&C., to have left his wife voluntarily he sPsty 70
u
mony that this Intended TO be permanent separation.
Although copies Of these articles Of separation hsv. been
shows this intended TO be listing separation It
also be proved that the Psina has o told certain ps' that
the separation final and uDstersbe This appeared
nanems5 Alter ihis shs met i,b defendant at Taylor.
saloon i have a mistress Of Eio.ts %s,h
inst the counsel on the opposite te attach tho family
and auH5sr Of children to eSd |, OF 70, 20 The -od
through the press TO ha,a and si''os w ho.shu
ct on by thi. Elliott scheme eHtorOn gP By this
msht have been cononed with certain
he had written to defendant would be in their reDenor4nc
thu case H. hoped that the jury by their verde, IN h e
would show they through III. nesrous yhens- AID
hat by their Judgment they would elm death bio~to the
y quoting the following from Byron
For startled BY the mingled howl
coward brood which wrange a. they prey,
BY helsh instincts all that eros. their wayi
Aged young, the living or the dead,
No mercy hnd-theSe haTpie, must be fed"
wm +. Miller the first witness the defence n.
tined tst hs place Ofbusness in Bcton and law
to draw up articles Of separation betw ha,si and wife he
the .epsrstion Brown Informed witness that Mr.. Brown
he could her. said she
pny and sometimes bsen,ed herself at night without his know
the subject snd agreed separation Brown aer~rd brought
his ~e to the once OF witness and wines pos. % her on ne
the papers were drawn gp he kept the original drs hn'
Arce Of separation shown to wness He recognizes the
handwriting gned BY Brown hi. wife witnc.s resd the
article Of SEPARATION by request Of cog1.eLl n,
By the CourThe copies given to Mr. and Mrs Brown were
exact copies of this article.
He asked Brown If he who biz wife kept company With
against his wishes his reply that there woman by u.
Of Miss Cuk that -he associated with either al thu,
Brown said she with person who Of band Of
Ethiopian nnstres he thinks this weeks after tho
Brown two times that sometimes in the rating
house End sometimes in the street Mr. Brown never expressed
calm and the time separation they
perfectly agreeable and seemed mutsy satisfied with The
His deposition taken in Boston contain anything about
the gro mnsre his business here Is to attend th. M
ne has fOr that express purpose when he met Mr.
Mrs T. he never knew inc family OF = Brown did not gn
derssnd that she minor his recoLe ion seems to be that
pent for draSna ap os article but receive little i.doE
he did not consider that transaction conhdenl cannot ten
made the former deposition the deposition was taei In The
ness in coming attend thi, trial he did consider
"hsas 6 va R OF MOI ay Mrs.
John Paine, .Poy individual. very seneq,qly and
he remembers that the plaintiff called HIS office 70 have
articles of separation drawn Brown stated eon Of
style and that she had been nights without hi. eompahy
co. he and his wife together there
ad Gys calmly sHa EoS5 a 3qs H. 4 he Of Ss
which done accordingly and .god in the office in his pe
he BROWN him that the separation
chan eabe she satisfied year or
ion he BROWN told witness that Nm Brown even more
-uy than he coce ed her to be the time Of separation
CrosseIamiued-e has formerly made dspostion did not
mention all in thai deposition he has testified to-day
for that was be not asked and had reflected he
KINKS the hrst interview between him and Brown took c. AZ
he restaurants the substance Of the conversation that his
wife was In or about the city and that the separation fixed
ind unsterabe he B. again the street suoseqruty
the conversation the part Brown formerly
and woman had eserted bad influence ME vile; he
BTow9 spoke OF these parties as having been the Of their
the
sons he cannot state the precise language used by Brown the
wife Of Brown remarkably looking woman b. cannot
tell whether she was minor or not: does not know whether size
Isaac LOpnsbsry the witness He testified that he
Sargent saw her at No. so York street Mrs Webb; hy
with him. Miss Sergeant there during the holidays snd
there about SIX weeks he never saw anything oat Of the
way IN her conduct except her going at night he bad no II
that she went out nights MscChs absence from the
Ill 10 IL O'Clock he that one night in particular he
met her in Fulton street brooklyn and that night she aid
an hour ana returned to Mrs webbs Yok street but
she had not returned when he len SAID
was going home she did oFetum that time Till after IL
Crossexsnined-He cannot tell when she e Mira Webbs;
was in February he summoned here give esd
In this had had any with any psrson
about This knows that lie out nights during Mac.
Chres absence does know how often Mr. MacChrss
was absent while she boarded there did 40 during
tell whether Nee Went hone the second week
OF not cannot tell whether she than during
TIE second wees or no knows she went out he thinks
she ord not come home until after he 20 bed he did
dining that eyensng lodged n The back psor A Mr.
Ne66s he cannot tell what she when she he
he cannot tell positively whether it was week OF
not before iSo. she went out again he saw her
night looking OUT be sitting there by accident not by
not swear about her sos ou ns ny 5 her Ssa
out more or e.s every week Mr. MeChtie thereon
else evening that he but thinks she did
not &C., IN that night until II o'clock he suppose II 9cok
sno~ positively about her coming home the chaubemad told