The New York herald., 1864-12-21

Smith Brothers and others think the roo, rd win show
that they came to the conclusion that was the Only
honest contractor there In this country. augAr
ter) When ] came out I went about my bus1
ness, and when went 70 Washington seers.a1y
LANES, . we'll known lawyer there. who has bssn my
lawyer good while; said he. 'Mr. ssovsr am very
bink It any personal feeling against YOU But this hing
commenced with you; 1t had 70 commence somewhere,
snd %sns as wen with you as WIN any on. s
am very happy 10 say TO you that do not oeevehsre
was any foundation for any imputstions made asisss
smith Brotherss A. They have boen trial FOR lar
three months and convicted and their sentence any
thing less than ten years a hard labor shall - vssy
much disappointed.
Nh. arBBs'RvYDsN0H.
The pext witness called WAS Mr.. Wm Gibbs, III Il
venor OF the carbine manusactursd ~ the Farley wor
Ia response to OK Judge Perrepont he statsd-Irs
b ookyn; my business 10 that OF mechanio 6eoted
this patent osrbins and know all about IL: know tts
while is burniOg; was engaged At work thse; ~
principal business to sec the gun got up In propes
shape and form was there almost every day unti wia
Mr.. Ksene came In there; am familiar more " ~
with machisery have been fssa,as with guls ~
,Ss 81 3. 1 U.s a.
not examine Il, except in certain parts sotiesA
In the newspapers that Il had been paid; am the nS
Gibbs who ID the pateptes Of the carbine @ lid -
carbine.
E.csps.cs take. by ~ Judge Enoss. .asssrd svs
Ex Judge Psrrspons said .A.s .aSy we're providsa ws
Ex.Judss E@oW replied sSs. v.s perfectly WI. -
tied that beous charge could mot bs jsstAsd W say
Ing that = had been made By ,aomeeod! sse, R n1
man ~ s'nply showing shas another person hs osss
rhs Court said that there w.s no aushsv.sy 70 aAus
Or exclude H. yhr. Gibbs hsd fabricated Il, seves
had said H. then the case would be different - stana
Is evidence 10 mi6at,on. 4 bold that u u sup,y -
witness-I did say % 70 number q dtnsrsss sindivS
duals 9 wha. DO you now say g The j.sY sseotia
Witness, continuing. % another qucsiios-I sa,d
Mr.; FARLEY = :ais 50 70 many other persons
ruled out; aad this closed the evidence OF Mr. GN
EVIDENCE OF Mr.. Il. HARRIs.
Hamilton harris being sworn and examined
practising law In the city Of AibaAy; have Draat>
psp.r and paSiiOa;i,ns ,I handed 20 xitnssl
sewspsper); was ~ the hand writing ef MrKO
,...... va: sent 10. . ny brother s ~ Mr. opdyks'
EssnsN0 Jesvnal. end Il 10 cnsld rsot 8 49,
paper, then that SHOULD b published II "a
sss: =: : ::ss 1. sd ~:
o:s. Ss':..:s s.:
and DO not know have any authority - peAsos
+ sos 8 ess . eRsss: !.
srp. .psq.ss s.. 10. h..' T.. s.s S' SSs:
was lon with The puSsSsr, iud has not bsss fous3
Mr. Evarts-K your Houvs please, this letter dats
the 12th ef October, 1893, ana Will nov read R ~
s Cross examined BY Mr.. Fisld-Bo.a es sn.s. ,....
are in my brothsrs handwnsint (Dsiss stvsa and .
Mr. Fied-I utter no secret Prom the openlox ~
ettsr was reaa verbatim, to the remark that bsgs
with lie. now have the proof that t was true To
offer the letter IN the Statesman II evidences.
will not object 70 the Introduction Of the letter II
Il was provoked By previous attack Of the dsisoas
Weed.
Mr. Evarn-Do you object Dos' Ny risss In iau
II the other side objees then Il viii bs NJ
duty TO state on what ground they admissible. ~
question is simply do they or do they no oSjecti
The Cours-Do understand that the letter cbjeo(
MIR. Ficld-ws win waive the objection u We be sllos
considersble desuItory discussion ensusd in ressr
this matter. and counsel exchanged frequent broaG
in which, however, there WAS nobody hurt
FIX Judge Emost said that 10 prevent mistakes he'
give the authori,ea on which he 9essd hts arss
sry is.isr Of Mr. opdyfs was no evidence
any particular letter OF his, sxcept should
.r,;.n as !" n. o ss.h o. ssu,smi.r is Va. psSs.
the Albany Jovwat Of the 18th os October, 1S6S and
charges were brought 10 1854 Il would bs enough
him sustain his objection BY simply citing the dsc,s
which have been final 10 similar matter. Counsel Il
cited the Of could against Weed, and made %
the This Vas quoted in IL Wendell, l2, detailed
the particulars Of the celebrated case OF Morgan.
the learned counsel. Judge EnOss wen. o. 70 cont
that, 10 references 70 proving this libel, the lsttss Oh
By counsel on TIE other side w.s Of no avail q ma
gcther except the other side were allowed " prove
correctness.
Mr. Evarss IN replying 70 Judge Emott, again onsssA
purpor,ng be written the assh q September Is
He proposed 10 reed the letter, which, however
evidence In the usual way. The dsrsnt libels asd %
Of libels already 30 frequently published wsrs
cussion arose whether the lettsr In auesloe On
part Of IL could bs read.
Mr.. Fold objected to the reading Of any para ol
Thc Court said that Il was compstcut for the COZ
10 put the Judge IN possession Of the contents Of
parts OF the letter - ne night tnnk ht but did not ~
jury except u were offered 10 evidence.
Mr. Evsrts called attention 70 the date OF the ID
He offered merely . letter q Opdyke, withog
question ~ 70 In having been pSblished. lie prv
the letter ~ svidesce In chief, and read two e.
Iahsd" &C. The comments II Mr.. Evarss On this extr
wspt to show thas this public and deliberate stateus
Of Mr. Opayxe .os. ne Isd no contracts with the govs
fully prove his secret relations with the sovsrnmA
his public statements 70 The contrary, "tnas he 10 No
the publcsns and snnersp who have no contrsots. T.
was another ground. He comes into court for CONT
satory damages only. These paragraphs 10 his L.
point clearly 10 the fact that damage can como ID
from anything that Weed may say That had
already fully dscidea by the public remark that moth
that comes from Weeds psn cap bs Of injury TO any
The third ground on which the letter II Admssblsts n
ground OF provocatiop
In reply Mr.. Field went over the grounds whioh
lstcr was offered n evidence. The Only objection o
BY counsel. he said, was that the attack should no
without she defence. Counsel on the other side had
that the letter could BE- read merely as letter..
thm was no ground for ne admission. Nest coS
had sold that u was evidences In cnisf OF
of the the issue; but he had failed 70 ehos
other part Of The than that which refers TO ~
claim. First, whether Mr.. Opdyks hsA concosiet
interest IN the claim, and second, ~ 70 whetner
oonceaIing his claim, he bad saA upon oommMses
pssssd upon the olaim 10 another piacs the couns@
that Opdyks cAn rscovsr nething beyood comps.s
Aamsass This he haa sso oom pletsiy failed 70 ~
Tho learned Judge said thss was clear IN ~ 90
ton that the letter could not be admitted 10 ev"ssc
ESocptfsu Of oeupssI msds snd noted
a. L~arSs .asA hs ~0uId nnove the reCApai0u