The New York herald., 1865-12-28

Cancellation Of tho Address for the De-
fence-Com cncement or tho Sum untng
Up for tho Plaintiff.

Up for tho Plaintiff.
SUPERIOR coURT-rRIAL TERk.
Before Judge Garvin
At the opening Of the court yesterday there was as
crowded an attendance ever and among the specta
tors for short time were Judges McCunn and Barbour
who occupied seats beside Judge Garvin
The cousse for defenoe resumed his summing up, and
commenced with the subject Of the alleged abortion
the defendant for which. he contendsd. tho plaintiff
was responsible and had occasoued The only person
who had motive was ne Tho defendant could not have
had ove because she could have no doubt az 70 the
paternity Of the f1tus being evident that its concep.
ton took place at time whom neither she aor Edward
Sirong was position 70 have improper intercourse TO-
operation on herself ignorant she must have been
Of anatomy, and knowing as she must have,
might cnsue to herselfS On the othcr hand the plain
tn according TO the testimony Of Mrs. Hcksher, had
confessed that he the guilty party In the transaction,
and another occasion bad limited his intention to per-
form il in the conversation with Mr. Stevens when he
said that birth o. the child alive the only thing
that could break up the agreement about screy If he
had no insirumeniaity In it. why not the childs
birth recorded in the City Inspectors Office in accord.
with the general CUSTOM On the subject Of the al
legged confessions the counsel urged that the testimony
Of Drs Trask and Bedford proved that the defendant
must have out OF her mind when she made them IL
she did So from the effects Of long continued drains
on her system by exhaustng Diseases II she gave the
written confessions produced In court they were wrung
from her by her husband and could not have any weight
with the Jury But there ausion In the note to Ed
ward or in the paper given To her husband as
confession either TO any particular crime or TO Edward
Strong MS the person with whom IL was committed II
apparent that her only fault was c0nceament from
her husband OF insult offered TO her by some one.
Nothing more appeared the papers introduced
fessions Again, there no evidence that the noe.to
Edward SENT If It was, what kind OF an an
swer to it, II the paper intended as an ad
law why was enigmatca, and why did il not state
plainly its objccty Why did 1t not contain statement
that for eighteen months she had lived as Edward
Srongs wifes The defendants version Of the af
fair the most rational and credible When closeed
with her sister she told her that Edward had called her to
his ROOM locked the door presented pistol at her head
and threatened TO take her life fly II she screamed
On this point OF his argument the counsel criticised With
great severity the testimony and conduct Of Mrs Bede
whom he charged with the responsibility Of this public
exposure stating that was In her power either to cause
or TO prevent it. Mrs Bedel, the Bishops wife. she
whose husband had tied the sacred knot she the
person used TO cut IT, and therefore was at antipodes
with her husband the subject Why had she not been
produced testify in persons Because she never could
have stood cross-examnation her studied and care
fully prepared testimony before the commissioners be-
cause she had taken part IN plan 70 eurap ne DEFEND
understanding that the letters and admissions were to be
confidential and never to be used against her
Of confidence The questions which Mrs. Bedel
was TO be asked sent TO her by Judge Hoffman
answers. This be proclaimed was sur and stigma upon
Judge Hoffman, old momber OF the profession, ,sfrom
whom such thing should not have been expected
charge OF adultery against the plaintiff This charge he
argued proved by his Of leasing the waver
Icy place mouse 10 hTS fOtter, Tue evlueuCe O MTs
walsh Mary Smith and detective Jones' and the failure
OF Mrs Potter appear In to contradict accusa
ions attacking all that should De dear To- vrtuous wo
course with Peter r. Strong The testimony Of Mary
Smith remained unshaken in spite OF all the efforts OF the
plaintiffs counsel Mrs Hillicker next In for an
overhaung The counsel stated that she guilty Of de-
berate perjury IN her testimony she swore 10 one place.
the alleged adultery vngat waverey place. and in ano
thcr place she that at that same time she lv
ing in Bleccker street. where she received money from
Gkoo a. ahn pf1io tu nurcfp
working on vests with a machine in her
own room during the same period She swore that
the panes of the bedroom window In the Sixth
clear and yet u had been proved by the pro-
ducton Of that window In court that i was painted II
great saying OF old philosopher that he never
wanted anybody TO prove person guilty OF fasehood
when he could do IL out of the PERSONS own mouth.
This Mrs. Hilcker had beon proved to be common
prostitute the inmate OF houses OF III fame at time
the lyngn department OF Bellevue Hospital and the
mother Of child about whose existence nothing has ever
since been heard. This was the woman produced 10
break down the testimony Of honest Mary smith and
Arthur Jones the detective In conclusion the counsel
appealed to the jury behalf Of the wife and her chill
dren II she had sinncd had she not bcen esrfuy pun
ished? Driven from her home, hurled from her high
station deprived Of one Of her children, was she not an
object OF ptyS II verdict rendered against her,
would not lasting stigma and shame be branded upon
her children and their future life be Of misery and
Il was nearly two O'Clock when the counsel concluded
and recess Of fifteen minutes was taken
Mr.. GRAN SUMMING Up FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
Al expiration Mr. opened his argument In behalf
OF the plaintiff by submitting to the Judge series Of law
points which he requested he Court TO Incorporate In
his charge 10 the jury He then turned TO the jury and
necessity Of impartial consideration OF the case he
begged that at least for the sake Of avoiding the scandal
Of another public exposure they would not disagree In
could change the relations Of the plaintiff and de-
fsndant The crime Of the defendant was such that,
101sn %a.. sesp the % SnsSsnd and WIFE forever. ss
more as far asunder as the poles. The
iy were cSsrsS with Whatever disgrace that expo
mistaken notions Of family honor, had dragged the
fortunate woman into the public for the purpose OF
defending their heow nosons Of blood and social dis
tinction. Such Was their notion Of the tnnscendent
height Of their family honor that he verify believed they
thought that God made the Stevens family as then the
Cured we're i not for the contest about che posses
SION Of the children. The defendant wanted 10 place
her herself on an s equality With her husband % M in IN
never been wife guilty Of the most hsInous offence pos
sIbe and a u her soalled "Chrssian herosm in con
% wsnssa no I'd divorce; he merely asked 10 ss Be- sycn his
children and because he could no otherwise get poses
sion Of them he bad bsea compelled 70 appeal 70 che
the other side he bad not done what would have been
perfectly justinabls, cloven down his guilty wife
her horrible incestaous intercourse with his
brother No; he had preferred 10 pursue the peaceful
course because he had done he had oeen abused
and attacked In the most shameful and sudacious man.
ner, called hesrless father . cruel tyrannica hus-
band. avarcious psnurious man, and an sdnlterer
II be avaricious Why had he taken his wife 70 Eu
rope and travelled with her for two years II he
aearess and unnatural father why had Mr. Stevens
sworn that be believed hc was monomaniac on the sub.
ject OF his chylds deathf
Al this stage ohe proceedings Mr. Cram broke on and
the court adjourned until eleven O'Clock this morning
II Is expected that the case viii bc fnsy concluded
to-day.
board or Education.
The Board OF Education met last evening, Commis-
sioner Mclean presiding