The sun., 1865-05-25

o. i, chiii yeilaps thi,e of four ot Ave times lie
oi,en spoke ofls family troubles; did not ask wheh.
| III be- came be cOniorted he used 10 talk W lis
oihef family TO Iufof formed an idea ~ moth
er wi'hrut asking WlO NHs tie father Of my dSugn
| tei's child, hut .he requested me tot to ask.
Jghn u; toga,tya ldsntlh, Pslef ~ .yned ,1 snd
,vom 70 by plsinis and " HE Lsnd-Iitns Nm sIhe
| iendant ALLEGES his marriage 70 the plantifl Wit
vW tho council TOR Mr. Trust In The former nc.
| ti0n, IN which he vas plaintiff
Cross-e IAmin,d.- he plaintiff never told she
va not lnsrrild to hr Tru', she never t1ld me ,he
declined W 80 on with that suit because Mr.. Trust
you'd not paw me.
9Th avenue and 99th street where Tho family Of
lomptin. lived, compoeed Of Srs. 1Ompkins and her
lar that used 10 vs there the dark faced gentle
man visit there once; sau him come in In the eve.
ming and 70 out Ia tho mornings sac him there thTes
OF four timss but never SPOKE TO him.
Ctoss-eSamined l couldn't say there vas such
JndeS " rvs, Kns- Of hi, father's vi,itins hi,
Toupk ns family. him there; heard him say TO
ss sei 10 ,o az To and ssEed hs,SsTp e
been a rood oy that day the witness made mote of
were there Mr. Irust said 10 the child, psps hs,
Cros.-eI,mined- 1t ". on th. 1ath Of las, jam.
ary I vent there 70 eee and hear what / could |
would have spied anything could ttere ga. In th.
hsit did not put ny ear TO the tey-hole; could
diarv vts written at my father, DIGESTION, and ws
written three weeks aftef It pnrpored to te. tCom
m.neee TO rcad from diary-rued ouig
Ny father is thfcc-tcofe and nine year. of
are; what wrote bore war entiiely under hi, inhu-
Unce
Cherioit, Graham Resided in the hcu,s In which
Mr. Iouptins and two dsushter hVcd; remembers
Nj Trust saw in thcto once four OF five YcafB
~erc in the Tompkin. sittinr-roorn when Mar
that baby vas there; he wanted TO know whether We
didn't thnf him hne boy. hvN not ever month
Crc..eIsminsd-Heard Martha say che vas mar
s1,ysrsi Brodno, Resided In ,ame house; Nr.
Trust visited there; ws. IN the room twice when ihe
doctor snd harth, and the haly .oI9 prs,eng che
Ea ar n ha lfNa mil Ip iLs4A rms
they were discussing name for the boy; they intro
duced him 40 the DOCTOR gu aseeond occasion, vhen
the same we're present showed mo q baby Jumper
che said the doctor had bought for the baby ssu him
leave late - ten O'Clock In the evening later
Trust visited there almost every sunday; lc would
come between and ; cannot tell when no vent
G,org, 4 Empi,- Il acquainted with the Trusts
hiss known them since 1s46 they were then living as
be told me about two yess $40 his wife bad LETT him
probably little more thinf It WAS At bis place "
business Walker street near Broadwav.
Cro..eiAmined.-I tnew him Dr Trust since
he has got another name never knew be hsd any
other wife living he never told me -.
Percy Trul teeAlo ed have ,ccn my father at
tho corner ot Hudson and Houston streets, where
ing at O'Clock. Asrths had none oi her outer apparel
on.
pctticoais they came ont 10 sbuse did not see
my father 30 into the house went thery " serve
Ar,ua Gouri,,,-Re.ids. At tho corner of Hons.
ton aud Hudson streets Knows the 1Ompkins by
sight they have been living there abont year; tho
defrndsnt calls on them regularly At aud leaves At
o'olock IN the evening sire sav the doctor 80 out
with the lady who has the child.
Juid Gtrpts resided at the same house, Knows hy
slght tic Tomps ins family. Defendant nas teen in
the habit Of coming every evening from t9 o'clock
'ince the Tompkins have been there. saw him once
7obn,y Truni, IS yesr old, recognize, hi, father
and mother hi, father told him slout a ) ear ago ke
witne.s, hsh half brother lie told laiy in witness
p@ieoen',v @ mat be had four son, and one dapEhier
said he took her to the theatre.
Plaintiff heio rested.
TIIp nrFEsCg
Tho defence called Mrs Trust formerly Southvick,
who gave her name /. Eliza Trust and testified a.
icllow.: sho was ss-riod to Jo,eph " Trust In the
pansh ot ST. james, March TO- 1871, and is hs lawful
vale. tAf sAnTay objects on the gtouat that % wiic
tsined aud the lady Withdrew fiom the stand
JoyPh ", trust t,e defendant rss then sworn
ed to enquire OF the defendant Whether h. believed
IN tho existence Of supreme Being. The WA ssa
fepeai a., h ne believed IN "a &sspifme lnesence
Juryt 4, have iuy dOults about It. Witness then
vent on to cay that be had SACRED regard tor fr1h
lio believed there ~ q puuBhmen fO4 perjury by the
lar OF tho land, that s his clrious lec The Court
thgeupou excluded thc defendant from the stand.
Gs0rC, IL SUi'h--Mn connected with the police
Department in Il city recently became acquainted
With NJ. and hrs Trust. ucnt 70 a h0use to adjust
loaritr, was present. -hen the plaintiff was wit
Lees grainst th. witness When cue called hersef
ei'PA'if "i'' Hii'A NA'A hoA AeHbhAh ulNl loSk
Cross-eIsninsJ- This occurred at the Police Head.
quarters ho sW then n policeman; 10 not now re-
Ddrit 5. B,oksidrsr-ls connected With the Police
l~partmsn res p'escnt when plaintiff produced
~ witness against smith atout NO Year, ago aud
save her name AZ Daippior; does not reeollec, what
John d. Su''.cr rla,d-Ia ,ecn plaintiff saw her
before the FJAtd of Police Con missioner che wac
snd said after mo1hof. death she took her maiden
name
The defendant then offered in evilen-o ,mAtri.
mCnl1l al, cii'tncnt ty a Mr. Roe, with letter
signed "hrs Rose" In the hLndw ritnP oi piaiutti
a alleged, making M appointment " meet she nn,
sserer OF Ihat advertisement.
suNHISG Ur
| The defendant havus rested and the plaintiff de.
elinins 10 put in further evidence, Nj BInc GU tho
part Of the defendant summed up, stating the facts
on the defendants theory. That he was married iu
Eugand and having ior some revon separated from
his first wife ts county and lived, as - Ac.
knouledeed in improper intimacy with the plain.
| TN, aud though in stiAitrued circumstance had
sndeayorcd 20 bring them up snd educate thym wtll.
| hat TINS had not satisfied the plaintiff, but her
syarice 10 luired more. That che had lersecutod I'm
WIN threats loT the purpose OF obtaining money. lie
commented on the suit IN which tie defendant called
| W plaintiff his wills, and upon tvs matrimonial ad-
yertltemeat Of Mrs kose," aud the prof Of her
having declared heTfth HWiiov, etc, and upon the
| seskness OF tho evidence Of tho aiultery.
hr. ssnHay on the part OF the plaintiff summed mp,
explaining the fact Of Mr.. Trust not being allowed to
testify aud claiming that was not necessary nor
the best evidence to sivc proof Of ceremonial mar
Taee, that this was dIlhcult all cats Where year.
bad passed since the marriage, but that IN this cAss
the fullest eyideuce bad been given Of tLcI having
been husband and vile. lie comment cd uu ia. pos,.
ton OF the children iu this case, on tie various Item,
oteNld,nce sdversu 10 the plaintiff aud espe, aly ON
the evidence VI hat NAs said IN the Police Colnii
| sOutls ohce.
| JupGEs CHNRGE.
Tho Judge. In hif charge, alluded TO the intere,,
the case had excited US eyinoed in aeiowdrd court