The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-04-01
THE SoRrHRuP TRRspAss CASE.


| dence, sc.
sUPEEME ooURT--CmCUIr.
Before Judge Barnard
MARCH 8I,Cdlvin N. Northrup John G. Veedrr and
Co'nslia Yeedcr.rhe trial OF this interesting
resumed TO day at ths usual hour The attendance Of
spectators ever, and hundreds were
unable to find standing Annexed report Of the
proceedings
john g. veeder cross.examined-In tho fall OF 1862
received teegaphc despatch from Dr. Fields to como
10 Now York and my daughter TO tho city and
stopped at Mr. Underhis engaged in removing tho
furniture on the l2h OF December 1862 at tho residence
moved TO the house OF Judge Fonda in ast Twenty third
street. six bags OF potatoes were taken from tho collar
also basket OF crockery did not photograph Of
Mr. Northrup there that day; most Of the thugs werc
removed from the second floor.
O. Did your daughter bring these pictures With her 10
Now York; A. When my daughter moved 70 Chatta-
nooga-
| Mr. scbafer-we don't want TO hear anything about
Chattanooga now; wo will occupy II hereafter.
q Was the silver you took away tho property OF
your daughter A. Yet. mother gave part OF t.
and she bought the balance legacy left bcr by
her brother; the legacy 10 question amounted 70 one
pssiyo Ss,onsea To- his dassns and the Sa.acs no
believed to have been bought with her money could nos
say as 60 the crockey the gobets aud dccsnters were
Re direct examinat on-Ihe watch aud chain referred
.ne was my Ssr as y
presence aud he did not deny t. some articles
% Inc ss %d men moved Sok
the mistake was made by the carman
| Cross oxamination resumed-Why was this property
allowed TO ROMAN at Judge Fondas house so longf A. My
daughter was endesvoring TO ct divorce and though.
l. she succeeded she would 60 TO housekeeping aga
Y Dbl not Mr. NOrthrup oifor TO discontinue this suit
would give back the property A. He wanted back
all the property. and payment for what Was sold
Q Was any OF the property sody A. Not that know
Nicholas Yates Of Schenectady, deposed that no was
upholsterer knew Mss Corncii veoder, she pNnted
Out lot OF furniture to mo- which appraised inc pro-
perty worth lbout 1913 a.
1 pnssh honh firm
turo IT not all sound, somo u IL bcug broken and
much did not know anything about this case un
I'll after the spprasemen Mr. Veeder asked me TO ap.
praise the property II the furniture It would
| have boon worth double tho amount.
Ghrlcs G. Smith deposed that he went to Judge Fondas
house. at the request OF Mr. Veeder saw the property on
the third floor. and few days afterwards witness wont
/ for MIR. Mcrcer and had tho furniture appraised.
Francis Mercer testified that he was cabinet makcr.
doing business in Fourth avenue wont to Judge Fondas
the articles second hand the valuation was madc
with reference to sG2 tho property as witness appraised
tross OK minei-Q Has property OF that character
advanced July atty per csu since 1880, Question %.
| fcripii n be reduced IN value by movingf A. Yes.
George D. Stevens deposcd that ho was jeweer, do
lug business 10 Boadway mado an appraisenent OF sill
yer ware Al The Grard House, the request Of Mr. vee
der the aprasemeat made with reference 70 March,
Cross examinsd-w DOT n ssauan,sd with Mr. vocder
until made the appraiscment knew nothing about any
law suit until after had made the sppraissmen tho
silver was considerably used, and would havo been worth
double II u had been now.
l John c. Neoder recalled for the Qetonc0-The silver
ware referred to By tho previous witness was all that
took away from West Twenty street u was taken
away the Monday before tho 1871 OF Dec amber 1852
and carried by Schenectady and then back TO Now
York again.
| J. s. sisuson deposed that he was lawyer doing
business in Broadway; knew Mr.. Nortbrup from what
he knew Of the plaintiff be what his character
truth and vsracty his character was bad would not
isac G. Pearson Of No "a Ninth street. testified that
| no was acquainted with Mr. Northrup; had known him
for Ave or six years. from what have heard Of hts char
acter don't thing has been very good within the past
two years should hesitate believe him under oath.
Andrew C. Morris deposed that he knew plaintiff was
| acquainted with bis character It was very bad may
| say Infamous would not believe him under oath.
against Mr.. Northrup; have heard lady named Mrs.
Field speak against him young man named Hendrick-
said be committed forgery once; Ihave heard Mr..
Ford sresk badly OF the plaintiff have also heard q
gentleman who did business in Fey street speak badly Of
the plaintiff
L. saloman OF 800 Broadway, testified that he
acquainted With the plaintiff heard people speak OF him
as MAJ Of bad character II he was very deeply interest
| Cd would hardly believe him under oath.
Cross-examincd-o. Would you not be suspicious OF
any Ieson who very deeply interested in law sut'
A. No, sir. where The obligation Of oath was
| taken.
Mr. schafIer-You know there ia good deal Of false
Wiincss--I have heard you say SO before. sir,
A. have beard Mr. Powell say he would not believe him
under oath that he would swear 70 ono thing to-day and
Mr.. sohaiTer-oh, that is saying among law.
Witness-I dou't know You should know best about
Thorn Is Mulgan deposed that he was q constable had
bsr isss wheS witness went to Mr. Sortnrups house
the latter informed him tina. he removed the furniture
he would so bis peril, nothiog there
but what belonged 70 his wife.
Cross examined-what the amount OF the udg.
mentr A. Twenty odd dollars.
O. was IL not Tor fourteen dollars A. No, 1t not
Counsel .or deencewe now offer TO prove that Mrs.
Northrup commenced an action for divorce against her
husband the 18th u March, 1865 and that the present
action was not commenced until the 18th OF April follow.
ing. The object vas the present action
Il
divorce suit was commenced
judge Barnard-I shall exclude all matter referring TO
divorce You may show that the present action
commenced On the 18th OF April, but cannot entertain
Counsel for the de- ence-we offer TO PVT evidence
the certificate of the County Clerk Of the various udg
ments docketed and unsatsied against Norhrap at the
time this furniture is alleged TO have been renewed
Judge Barnard-I shall have 10 exclude that also.
Counsel Tor the defcoce-Picase note our exception
| :. y. B. wells rccalled-o 10 you know lady named
| Humphrey
Counsel for the detenoe-we want to show tina, the
plaintiff committed adultery with this woman
| Judse garuard-i shall exclude the evidence.
Counsel ter defence-rhe Court viii please note our
ception. We rest our cise here
| RE uruxc EVIDENCE.
William b. Chamberlain sworn-D epcsed that be
.ood would no. hesitate 10 believe him under oath.
,r,ss examined-iiaye heard Mr. Norihrup denounced
by I'D also favo ably spoken Of never heard Of any
| initial charge being brought against him.
,e,ad l. Harrison.a lawyer, doing bus ness At ls2
Nassau street, defosed that be knew TIE panti since
s4. went TO school with him Believed his character 10
b. coed, and would NOT hesitate TO believe him under
/ eats.
Cross examinet--f au not intimate with the paintf
know nothing about his associates heard any
speak tor or against him. heard hs character can
\ yassed.
Joseph y. Franklin deposed that he knew Mr.. North.
rup his character was good would not hsitie T. be.
| ieve him under oath
Cross exsnined--I have been client Of the plaintiff
have no, heard Of his assigning gooas which had been
left ~ him receiver by the creditors % Mr. Ford
plaintiff Is stakeholder and director in the No osuk
Mining Company with me, own about S30,0Vo worth 81
the stock DO not know how much Northrup never
heard OF Nortrup being IN the willow business
q. How many stockholders are there 10 this mining
company A. can't say II 10 owned all over; Il has
I capital q 800 goo
q. Woo else owns stock besides the plaintiff and your
scl A. About $4,000 worth Of the stock owned by