New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-05-25

Tsss IL I'D e: 'S
there s1o. tyeTS sndsy he would between
click cannot teswhen he never cav him 50
GsoTse r. Empe<I. acquainted with the Tru.t.; hs:
,ans . .sb other md wife 10 told ne about
two years ego his wife had len BIN possibly little more than
years think at his place OF business "sAef''
"e cros.esamn.a-Ik knew him Dr. Trusts snc. he has
got another never knew be had any other vile living
Pssy Trust Iscaied have father at the corner
him there this morning at O'clock; Martha had none
of Der outer spPsIel s Sn ,.a o,,n s,,,..
they abuse did my father 90 into
tho house II went there TO serve subpenas.
RetiIect-IEey did abuse me-
Amelia Gowess-Resdes the corner ofHonon and Hud
knows the Tompknses by sight they have been living
and lave. clock in the evening se saw the Doctor 90
ont with the lady who has tho child.
ompkns family defendant has been In the habit Of coming
there evening from till O'Clock since the Tompkinses
voDey Tras-i: Is years S od G recognize. hs father and
mothers his father told bin ebou he ,wi,ness had
four and daughter knows MARTHA she is in defend
ants store; Martha SAID lie took her to the theaier
The defense called Mrs Trust, formerly sou,hwicl who
sve aei hsy Es i, ana 'e.nso ma hf ,uas Is
March, 1877 and Is his lawful wife, (Mr ssnIay Objects on
s,and) The defendau Joseph w trust, then sworn
SSsre Of the dedsnt gStae1 he believed IN e eIes
of Supreme Being lie believes in Supreme INTELLIGENCE
bs, ."s nr doubt. sSou. H. W,tpss.
res; Has sacred regard for truth; be believes there
s p II. soa. b sS Te coG the % e.csdd the
defendant from the witness stand holding that witness mus,
make him competent to t.siiy
George j. smih--Wa. connected with the Police
viz Mr. .@d 'T Mr. k Trust 'sS ~sn' e'
present when the plaintiff witnes. against this vne..
She then called herself naper and said whom her nusos"d
Crssse1smired-Th. occurred ct the Police Headquarters;
be then policeman is rot now RESCUED about year
David s Books,sver-I. connected with the Police Depart
ment present when pis.nii wa' produced 2. wne.
does recocct what she said her marriage
john Sosherlsnd-TIas seen plaintiff before the
Boaid Of oee se was sworn s9a gave hue the
s sss % ld' la io .' her sdss nsS
nanine5Wes evidence Mr. Smith besides those
named rccoect any who present about
u ocock remember whether it clcer weather or
not; will what the season OF the year was 'oppose'
record was taken does not know who the Secretary was
who administered the oath the oath was the usual one
has talked 1t of other matters with smin not ~
pecisly; smith seIveda subpoena witness Las. night he
Mrs Tus-no, by that name he always heard
The def,udsu, then offered iu evidence matrimonial sd
verti.eea by Mrs Rose with letter stitched sgned
Ma Rosr making an poinimei TO meet the saswer Of
/ that advertisement. a..
The defendant having rested and e paitin
in furter evidence Nh ByrDe tie part OF tie dernd
summed the facts the defendants theory: That he
led in h gland and having Tor some reason sepnaed
from his hfs' wife, cane 10 IN. country ana 'ea
knowledsed in improper intimacy with the plaintiff and
faonr sragh,cusd cTcurtanccs had cndesvored 70 bng
lis children by up and educate them we'll that this had
sa,saed plaintiff but her avarioe required more that
u money. lie Commented on tie .ui, in which Tie DEE I'D
ant called the psinh vile and upon the matrimonial ID
vcrtsemen Of MIRA Rose. ard The proof Of her having de-
ciared hers. willow &C. and the weakness OF the
evidence OF the adultery. .
NJ Snrsy the part the plauta summed up explain
tie co Mr. Trust not being allowed TO testify and claim
proof Of ceremonial marriage, that tits dficalt In all
where had passed since the marriage but that In
this the fullest evidence rad been given of their having
husband and wife He commented the position Il tho
children this case, the vsrou, ers Of evidence adverse
aid in Ponce Con pissiones Office planning 1t away and
intending q Il the testimony IN that rcspec; w utterly on
supported Ho Commented severely some pas OF the
The Judge in b ,arge alluded to IRE in,ere., the had
excited eyneed In crowded troo aud the interest
ing us,uIe Of the questions arising In the a's itself The INST
question to be Submitted whether the plaintiff and de-
eni-nt married On this he called ttenton TO the
sworn complaint OF the defendant made bS nun N ICie
the Of h cohtbsiion aud reputation as hos
band and wife, recognizing each other a. suoe &c. 10
srd tst this ant evidence Of the usrf,s &C. unless
rebattel by other evidence. 1hG. it civil contract
in this State, only to be dissolved o. account Of
u li;eTy, and put tie question 10 the Jury; Ia
n Of this BY TebUng evdeneo'
u ai, evidence be included her assumption d TIE
DanIeE and Rose this only to be coosidsi.d
II reference Isge that II II was mere foy or In
on, Il amounted 10 rotbing IGe Tai e OF cefsy'
a witness Genee might be more - oory ovi'
donce Of tho marriage. but evidence Of other I'D was com
potent He alluded tie letter Tsned b Ia. Roso' out
reminded them the question whether th. !c va, or
balanced by testimony the marriage II they found Tor
plaintiff this point then they ms pa's 70 thr qo,,on %
Tls Jary ator al sbss nee minutes ietusnsd
se, i1I t psy o lie lie liant and defendant IL aud
second thu, te deeadan bad been guilty Of soueiy Win
Martha Tompkin. as areed IN IN. complaint
hlx orpI4u B,ru