New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-09-17
WIN you tell the Jury why you opposed Mr. Lit.s

WIN you tell the Jury why you opposed Mr. Lit,k
Objected 10 as MINISTERIAL
Objection overruled. Ex eption for plaintiff,
A. My objection was TO the character of the Ieos,,
uon ne had favored aud supported AID on account Of
these measures thought he wa not ft man for
Speaker, and that bis opponent better man; foy
| these measures,
2. Why were you opposed to these measures Of
| which you speak,
Objected to as immaterial
Objection sustained Exception for Defendant
" Had you any other motives for oppoeinQ the elee.
ton Of Mr.. L.tleohn to the Az emily or ~ Speske,
ta than those that you have m,ncneii A. had ne
otner motive for opposing bis election to the Assembly.
but it quite possible that afe these suits or threat,
OF suits, there may have been little personal feeling
on my side; l could not say that had no personal
feeling on the list of January last. certainly did OPP
measures but could not say had the same feeling
toward him last January that formerly had
Q. Did YOU at the time you opposed Mr.. Littleiohn
candidate for election 10 the Assembly 10 the Au
tumn of 1860 believe the measures 10 question were
corrupt measures 81
Objected to. Objection sustained
Cross-exsnination resumed, by air. Sedgwick
@ Do you mean TO say that between the 18th Of Sep
TENDER and the 23d of October you did not write or
publish any article against Mr. Ltlejohni A. mean
to say that do not recolect any such article.
z. DO you recollect writing article In reply % o
letter he wrote youi A. remember such an arti-
Gle.
@. Is that the article Handing witness paperl. A.
Yes, Sir recognize Mr. Litleobns letter, and that lie
my article in reply.
q. That appeared on the 9Th of Octoberi A. Yes,
Sir.
Counsel for the defendant moved to strike out the
above answers the plaintiff neither offers nor pro-
poses to offer the letter in evidence.
Motion denied. Exception for The defendant.
q. At what time was You III Chicago during the Fall
when this paper published Ia regard 10 Mr., Little
joint A. have been in Chicago about the Let of JAN
uary for the three last years, think
Q. Then you had not bee1 ia Chicago for several
months prior to the time when this said TO You
there A. No, Sir that bad been said to me in the
Winter Of So or SO.
@. Then the publication was founded upon state
ment made 10 you two or three years before A. Yes
Q. Did you take any means TO verify your recollec-
ton before the publication OF the article A. No, Sir,
because had no doubt.
O. Did you take any means 10 ascertain the fact
before this letter to Marsh and Webb A. No, Sir
did not know It disputed.
a. After receiving that tier, did You have any
communication with Mayor Wentworth before yo1,
wrote that answer A. No, Sir, as the letter will
show; il begius " Yours of the 2ith,' and it was
answered on the 10Th, l think.
Q. Did you meet the Committee having in charge
the West Washington MARKET BILL and use your iniin-
with that Committee 70 pass that bill A. Never
Sir; never.
@. Did you ever meet with them A. Never
.. Never met that Committee at all A. Never
O. Your recollection is good on that pointf A. Very
good
O. Did you ever publish in The TRIBUNE, or wa
there ever published in The TRIBUNE, article ap
proving the leasing Of this West Washington Market
property TO Taylor and Brennan !
Objected to. Objection sustained.
q. What was the circulation Of THE TRIBUNE in
September and October, 1900 A; think ia all the
ediuions-Daily, Weekly, and Semi Weekly-about
$50 900; but whether these icles were moi
published in all, l do not know.
Mr.. WmLnMs-Q. Did You make any exertion, o,
did anybody, TO your knowledge TO circulate In the
oswego District tue article upon which this action 10
founded
Objected to. Excluded.
Mr.. WILLIAMS read for defendant; offered in evil
dence the veto Of Gov. Morgan the West Washing
ton Market bill, and proposed to read it from the
printed Senate Journal.
Objected TO as not competent testimony.
Mr.. WILLIAMS cited the case OF Purdy sgt The
People in Iiill i05 and De Bow agt The People in
DEMO, IA; and ~ Howsrd's U. s. Reports, 34 and
1913; and johnson, so and 81; and Hill, 436.
The Court said ahoughthe testimony might be COM
petent per s., yet under the pr-seut aspect Of the
case and the present issue, il must be excluded
Exception FOR defendant
Mr.. Williams offered in evidence an exenpl6ed
copy of the preamble and resolution offered by Mr..
Itlcjohn one OF the members Uf the Board Of Land
Commissioners granting the lease in question to lay
Tor and Brennan.
Objected TO and excluded Exception for defendant.
Mr.. PORTER offered in evidence the acts In question
TO which the articles refer.
Objected 10 and excluded. Exception for defendant,
The evidence was here closed.
The Court adjourned till next morning.
I'VE shall continue this report Thursday, when
we shall print the able argument of JONI X. PORTER
OF Albany for the defendant.
----~----------.