The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-03-31
THE NORTHRUP TRESPASs CASE.
The Case for tho Defence-Evidcncc ms
to the Plaintiffs Cnarncfer-Intere crest
ing sparring Match Between the Coun-
&c.
SCpREME CoURr-CrRCyTT.
Before Judge Barnard.

Before Judge Barnard.
MARCO 80 --Cs't,r A. Norihrup rs John @. veedr
and Coyneid Vssder.-The court room crowded to.
day Notwithstanding tho nccmency Of the weather aud
much. interest manifested IN the proceedings.
Miss cornelia veeder recalled BY the COUNCIL for
the plaintiff but her testimony nothing more,than
repetition Of what had already been ELECTED AT the
conclusion OF her examination the counsel for the plain
til announced that he rested his case.
Judge Barnard--The counse Tor the defence will now
proceed 10 open his
Counsel FOR tho defence-9efore Opening she we
have motion to make which may do away with the
cessty Of an opening The counsel then moved for dis
mlssaI or the complaint. the ground that there
positive evidence that tho property removed by the
defendants except that ELECTED the examination of Miss
Veeder. There was no evidence that any property
removed the 18th Of December 1852 othor than that
which belonged to Mrs Norhrup, and which was men,
toned in the inventory produced by Miss veeder. The
counsel assumed that Mrs Narhrnp was previously en-.
gagged III removing the furniture and that that portion o.
il which removed on the 18th OF December,
titled to by Miss veeder the property OF
plaintiffs vie The counsel for the plaintiff had chosen
To place OF the defendants the stand and be
bound by her testimony, the evidence II the plaintiff
the contrary Notwithstanding There was no evidence
upon which to send the the Jury and he
specially moved for dismissal OF the complaint by the
Court
Judge Barnard-Athough much of the argument OF the
counsel might with force to the Jury. the Court
grant the motion The plaintiff has right to go to the
jury first the title tn this furniture and second
the fact whether there trespass committed by
the defendants.
Mr. Peck then proceeded to omen the case for the dc,
fence He took the ground that the plaintiffs reputation
not good for truth verlcity and IN course
his remarks applied pretty harsh epithets which
brought Chauncey shelter to his feet and war Of words
then followed between the counsel which was highly
amusing to the spectators.
Mir. Shaler-Ihe counsel the other side has a0rght
Of 10 call my client s'scoundrein cannot permit the
use Of such language, and Gait upon the Court to put
stop 10 such conduct
Mr. Peck-Am to be interrupted 10 .hts manner
Mr.. Shaaer-lt is scandalous that man wearing the
gown shouid persist in thus dragging in matters which
the Court has already ruled out There is legality
morality about it.
Mr. Peck remarked that the opposing counse, ought TO
say rs little about morality possible.
Mr.. Shalerl viii admit that the gentleman is pos
sessed Of moro morality than am; but am better
lawyer fIaughter.l
Judge Barnard-The gentleman mus, conans his
remarks 10 matters within tie ruling OF the Court.
Mr. peck-Certa;ny, your siouor intend do So but
OF blowing his horn, which calls for condemnation.
The COUNSEL then proceeded with his opening taking the
gronnd that the plaintiff unworthy OF belief asd that
his account OF the removal OF the furniture not
worthy OF credence as that Of Miss vceder The latter
Eorhrup and that the defendants assisted removing
at her request. Mrs. Northrup the Of the
the same: ,repnss had been commtted there
no cause OF action The defence would first introduce
testimony as to the Character OF the plaintiff for truth
oliver oyer deposed that a lawyer doing bust
heard his character spoken OF by about dozen fifteen
persons from what the witness heard he believed his
general character to be bad would not believe him under
oath where he interested party.
Cross examined-Made affidavit divorce suit
between Mr. Northrup and his wife.
q. We're you present when that affidavit was drawn
ups was when il in the form that swore to
was engaged in a suit against Mr. Northrup.
Q. Who have heard speak against the plaintiffs
character. A. have heard Mr. Ford and hs lawyer
speak badly Of him have heard several others speak Of
him, but cannot remember their names.
Charles A. Mceker dep0Sed did business No.
Dey street; knew Norhrup: biz general character was
tate 10 belize him under oath where be was interested
William A. Rosecrans deposed that he was a book
keeper, knew MIR Northrup his general character was
Cross.exnmiued-o a. Would you believe Mr.. Norshrup
under oath A. think would.
Counsel for the defence--So would I. (Iaushter)
George Nelson. Of Westchesfer county deposed that
he knew the plaintiff could not say that he Judge
of his character heard many persons speak OF
his character should say was bad aud world hesitate
TO believe m under oath 10 matter where he was In
terested
Crosse xaniiocl--o Who have you hoard sneak shout
the plaintiff A. have heard Mr.. Schieen OF Scheel,n
Brothers, say that Northrup had cheated all hands
assignment also heard Mr. Lientha speak badly
of him in connection with the Ford matter.
j. J. Hendrckson deposed that be knew the PLAINTIFF
his character bad: would not believe him under oath
in a matter where he was interested.
Cross-examined-Q Who have you heard speak against
Mr. Northrup2 A. Mr. Moore the broker in PHO street
Mr.. Ford, and Mr.. Clark the bookkeeper in Hegcman
Co. all spoke Of him in bad terms.
Josiah W. Thompson deposed that the plaintiffs general
where he interested party.
Cross.examined--o. You have had lawsuit with Mr..
Northrup' A. No, sir. but my wife has.
4. b. Wells, OF Newburg. testified that ne know the
plaintiff his character bad and he would believe
him under oath IN matter where he was interested
Cross-examiued-Q. nd you not receive hfty dollars
from Mr. Peck OF the counsel in this cases A. No sir
received i've dollars as miloase thedivorce suit.
O. Are you not iivng With another mans wife, A. No
sir, am not. hope the Court will protect mo while
on the stand. Outside Of the court viii take
Eiza Crawford deposed that she knew the plaintiff saw
him the evening OF the 18th Of December at her
house be called IN reference 10 taking ns house West
Twenty third street from what witness heard Of the
palnn she should say hts character good would
not believe him under oath.
He has boarded With me for the last seven or eight
years.
Henry d. Howard testified that he did business ct No
125 Maiden lane knew Mr. Eorthrup; from what people
sano, ms names n c any
except Mr.. FORD, who spoke against Mr.. Northrup.
John O. veeder sworn deposed that he wasgonc Of the
defendants and that his daughter Cornca was the other
father Of Mrs. Northrup, who lie now dead
present the 12th o. December 1862, when The forn
ture was removed from the plaintiffs house In West
Twontythrd there only three loads Of furni
ture taken away, and one lead o. provisions the pro-
about The house that day a, Mrs NorSrup reauess she
was in poor hoath al the time, being sick with consump
tom the property removed that day belonged 70 my
deceased daughter; know OF property that was re-
moved except what is mentioned 10 the inventory A.
sisted 70 removing carpet, which knew came from
moved we commenced moving about ten O'Clock and got
through about four o'clock have been IN the habit Of
giving Mrs. Northrup money at different limestone hun.
drcd dollars oil one time hty At another and at other
times smaller sums when che kept house In Chattanooga
sent her about one hundred and thirty dollars worth Of
furniture and gave her about two hundred dollars be.
sides 70 purchase things with.
q. 10 you know the vaue Of the property which was
removed on the 18th OF December, 1892 A. should
Judge 70 be worth two hundred and twenty i've dol.
lars or two hundred and fifty dollars.
The Court here adjourned until ten o'clock the follow ing
morning
Enttcfng Soldier to Ucaerts