The Portland daily press., 1865-06-08

hearings have been had at different times in
order to ouash the Indictment and stop fur
Their proceedings, has at last been passed upon
by a jury who have decided The substantial
question OF TACT.
TIE defendant, well known in this country.
and especially in Maine, as Hon. EF.EO. ],
Smith, Is a lawyer, politician and business
man, who for quarter of century has been
quite prominent in his own State. OF late
years he has been widely known as connected
with the Independent Telegraph Company,
and hissdeslings with Mr. Morse are familiar
to the business world During the course of
I his dealings In telegraphic matters quarrel
arose between the defendant and D. 81. CRAIG.
agent of the Associated Press, out OF which
the circumstances on which the case Is based
have grown. They are briefly a. follows:
Craig sued Smith in the Superior Court of
the city of New Y ork to recover go, 900 dam
ages for libel published In the Boston COu-
rier by Smith. Tue libel charged that Craig
cut the wires upon the Boston and New York
line upon the arrival Of foreign steamer so
as to give ascipher despatch to Jacob Little of
New York, advantage in time over other des.
patches of the steamer news, and that Craig,
for better concealment, used a woman as his
accomplice in the matter. Smith admitted
the publication of the libel, and urged truth
as defence, but the jury gave Craig $500 as
damages. In this suit 1t became necessary TO
take the deposition of one Charles Northrup.
in this city, and this deposition was taken BY
Joseph NJ Bell, Esq, as Commissioner. Fur
Their cross examinations was denied, and Nor
thrup made a supplementafy deposition here
before Edward Bangs, Esq as Commissioner,
az d IL is upon the statements made by Nor
thrup in this deposition that the crime is said
to have been committed. Northrup was In
the employment Of Smith, and it is alleged
that inducements were held out and means
used to induce Northrup to testify that he had
no knowledge OF the interrogatories pro.
pounded or Of any interviews or correspond
ence with Smith since given date, and also
as to the wife of Northrup being former mis-
tress Of Smith, by whom lie had children be-
fore Northrup married her. The answers of
Northrups to these questions were false, and
were given by Northrup Knowingly, under
oath, as evidence to be used and actually az
forwards used In the New Y ork suit Smith
was indicted for procuring Northrup to false
lyswear and ,peEiure himself ~
This indictment was specially assigned for
trial on Tuesday last, and at that trial occu-
pied the remainder of the week. A motion
to quash for various reasons is still pending.
but the case has been tried on its own merits.
The government put 10 several letters from
Smith 10 Mrs. Nothrup containing full details
OF the answers which Nothrup was to make,
and minute instructions as to the substance
and manner Of Nothrup's proposed testimony
before Mr.. Bangs. &&f Assf
Eothrup testified that Smith had talked to
him and written about this testimony: that
| certain answers he made before Mr.. Bangs
| were false; that when he under oath denied
| Smiths Intimacy with his wife, he lied; that
| she had been Smiths mistress, and had told
him SO before marriage; that he denied It by
Smiths direction; that he read the cross inter.
rogatories before giving his deposition, and de-
MED under oath that he had done SO: that he
did thisi consequence of Smiths direction.
and that Smith handed him the papers con-
aiming the instructions, the copies of the in
| terrogatories aud the letters to Mrs Nothrup
about the matter, in the Independent Tele-
| graph Room, in the Old State House, upon or
about certain day. He also testified that he
perjured himself in this manner because he
| expected Smith to make him manager OF the
Independent Line, and that being disappoint.
ed, in trouble and wanting money, he gave the
| papers to'one Rowe TO sell to Smith or Craig.
and afterwards received 800 as his share III
| the proceeds, after Rowe sold the papers to
Craig. He came to Boston now to testify IN
der promise of protection from the district at
torney. Craig had at several times given him
money.
Mrs Nothrup testinedto receiving the let
ters and papers. She had first known Smith
when she applied 10 him to get her d.
vorce froma former husband named Green
law, felon. She then lived with Smith somo
years as his mistress and had two childred bv
him. She said that Smith suppol ted her and
them until 1883 that Smith had talked with
her about these dispositions, and from what he
| said to her she expected him TO give her a
house on Harrison avenue if she could make
her husband remember whatto testify to; that
copies Of the interrogatories were sent to her;
that she read them over to her husband, and
when she came to those relating to herself
she threw them down and said she would
have nothing further to do with it; that her
husband must learn bis own lesson. She iden-
titled Smiths letters to her. She as well as
Nothrup denied that Smith procured, or knew
before hand Of, her marriage with Nothrup.-
She said she might have been engaged to
Nothrup two days before she married him. but
that he never paid her attention as alover.and
that they had no courtship. ee'se IA
Edward Bangs, ESQ.,, testified that he took
the deposition of Nothrup, and that he was
the attorney OF Craig in this city, Is u si.ss,
( This was the substance of the testimony for
the government.
Mr.. Hayes, 10 opening for the defence, ur-
ged that the government must prove the al
legged crime 10 have been committed N the
10Th January, 1852, the day named in the in
dlctment. Smith was to be tried only on the
charge therein contained, and for nothing else.
In the two dispositions of Northrup, the, gov
eminent admitted that in all the facts which
were material to the issue pending in New
York at that time Northrup's statements were
true; but they only charged perjury on the
Two or three small matters which were not
material to that issue. ~. 81 f...5s 4
They commended that the governments ease
was only supported by Nofthrup's admission
that he Committed perjury in bis statement
that his wife had not been living with Smith
as his mistress, and that he had no converse
ton or correspondence with Smith about the
matters contained in the deposition.
They proposed to show that on the 9Th jan
uary 1.-THE time when Northrup says Smith
gave him the package referred to Smith was
in Portland; that from early in December un.
til after the deposition was taken, Smith did
not or could not see either Northrup or his
wife in Bostsn; that Smith nevsrlived with Mrs.
Northrup as his mistress; and that this prose
cution was base conspiracy to iniure Smith,
and was instituted by Craig, -
The defence then offered evidence tending
to prove an dlibi at the time when Smith was
said to give Northrup the papers In Boston,
They also put on one Rowe and other wit
nesses to show q conspiracy between Craig.
Northrop and Rowe to push this prosecution
against Smith, and offered certain letters from
Craig to Rowe in order to corroborate the tes-
timony which, as they maintained, showed the
existence Of such alleged conspiracy. But
the court ruled that sufficient evidence OF any
conspiracy had not yet been given to author
lie the admission by Craig's letters TO Rowe,
and to make out a primG fdcie case of con-
spiracy to iDjure Mr.. Smith, and that there
fore the letters offered by the defence showing
that Craig had instructed Rowe in his work
with Northrop, and also that Craig desired to
have concealed from Northrop for the then
present time his agency in procuring his testi-
mony, could not be admitted.
The government then introduced some re-
butting testimony which tended to show that
Smith was In Boston about the last of Decem
Der, 1861, or the first of January, 1862, in spite
OF the showing of the defence to the contrary.
Inc case was argued to the jury with great
1oihty BY Mr. Paine for nearly three hours