New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-12-14

RedrecI do think that the instant remoe set In the
would set in matter Of course she conscious
ness Of after tho commission Of the ap0Hon apt
10 produce this effect upon tie mind I'm,
ae-cros.-A miscarriage sonees occurs from the inability
Of the organs to discharge their functions.
The Court then took a. recess.
AFTER THE RECESS
Mr. Howell recalled and testified that he has been CON
% the Gs Of bh aud p'Ss
record Of the birth death OF child Of Peter and
E. Strong tho only record there was the birth oil James
CrosssIamnsd-o. Do you record In your Office prrma.
Objected 10 and overruled.
Witnes-No sir; used to some three years ago. some
Of the clerks did: there reguiarr about H.
Redirect-We record in every instance where report
made.
To iurorWe do no, record If the physician makes re-
turn OF a premature birth .
rr Graham offered read note from Mrs James Strong
showing why Mrs. Mary f. Strong not allowed to go to
Mr Cram had no objection to the reading Of the note bat
The Court excluded t. on tho ground that it fOm
third person.
Exception taken.
LrTTERS.
Mr. Graham offered ~ evidence letter written In January
1854 by MIR Hoffman to Mr. siliman rela',ye to me una
CONVERSIONS f Mr. Strong and uigug M Strong to accept
them. The letter was published before
Counsel read anohc letter written Va Jonucry 1864 by Mr.
Hoffman Mr. >nan rejecting terms which nnd been pro,
posed by M. Strong and 70 winch Mr. Petcr Strong could
secedc aud giving notice that the suit should be COM
Counsel Rad another letter from Mr. Hoffman 70 Mr. Eoyes
relative to the serving Of notices In this suit The reply Of
Mr. WILKINSON clerk In tho office Of Mr. Noyes in 1854,
wss called TO testify 20 the handwriting Of Mr. Noyo. ,
Mr. Gerry offered TO read letter from Mr. Noycs to Mrs
Sgtong.
Mr. Cram objected to the reading Of letter from counsel to
hi client
The objection wa, sustained and exception taken
MIR Graham proposed TO show tina, the a't be
tween she plaintiff aud defendant wa by The direction OF .
Cuus Noye. and no signed biz approval Of II with his
band lie offered also. the same point litter iioH
Mr. Smnu 10 Mr. Stevens. In which he show" We result OF
his ion The subject He offered several o'her let
ers tie subject Of which went to so" the same oo'
jet.
/ The next witnes. called was Mr John s. Sparks
TESTIMONY or JOHN s. SPARKS.
Mr. Sparks testified that he resided AZ No West Forty
third he Dpltv Clerk Of the Court oi oonefsi zee
on and remembered tbe finding Of the inaieiusn against
Mr.. Potter
q. Wha, dore there J
Objected 10.
how Mr. Strong 60, o. propose show Il was all done
according 70 law and that b. got of BY aeombnauoh ~,
which dgustsI two Of ho Jurors he aihod 10
bc heard on th- point.
n, GRAHAM siir. I'd the Cont for 20 mirutea
The Cour; excluded tho evidence and noted The e1oep'
tiouA 49,. A.. D.,
teri A. Yes; he gave so bal, TIE whole indictment
do not know whose c4rck u was
Tho witness tlon len the stand.
Tho J1d.- stated at he would receive no evidence ID fee'
Nn ". Jscobu. IN stach6 Of the District Aorney''
or. testified that he tried 30 subpfna on Madame
Ba bier bit rr,ven,ed BY the barring oi the DOORS
Mr. Com objected .N,
Barber To- tbs cas and that shc could TESTIFY great H'A
more than she did, she was an unwilling wine ~
aho is called h,r not ',olPed hon showing Li
Relations 10 or case.
The Court escili-d ne evidence.
The witness len he stand
T.e court then 9srnel 90 II o'clock Ills morning