The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-11-30

<Settes, except the note and letter received in JRnua
~ 1902 bore any dae or the OF any place e. that
81 which 1t was wtten cannot give the dates Of said
letter and note received In January 1852 any pre-
circumstances that they were written al New York but
don't recollect that the words New York; wef written
IN either Of them in connection with its date have no
rooolction that subject reflection should 81 thar
NAV u possible that SAID two letters OF 1864 mentioned
in nv answer 70 the eighth direct inenugatory were
dated o ~ notes which bore dates were b." the
At the TOP or head thereof; do remei .ess, uau.u
DIV 81 the letters and notes refer ID ~ n this cross
ordinary blackness otSing Macmillan ~ about
Il; have recolect" Of the color Of the naner on
which either OF tim was written; think that they
we're written IN moderately large sized note paper;
don't the number of paragraphs in eitherTof
said letrs notes. the letters written suppoSs in
the DIST week in January In May and in june were
sasa as think letters o. two s sheets making eight
the the ns ssr Of ap ss was a'f sh 1sss'S e
or notes commenced with .Dear Madame or concluded
with ssYours, truly" 'Yours, adectionateyn the
ses ,nG p snaed w
afflicted sister, words TO that effect, followed by the
signature "Mary, or MARY r. Strong" don't reco
ect which, the other letters and notes referred to
in the ntcogatory feel confident that neither
OF them contained any address concluded with any
formula or signature, and that my name did not APP
pear at the top or bottom, or in any other part OF
either Of them, and that neither Of them was
subscribed With the defendant's name, either in
the best my recollection the commencement
cuson Of the letter and note Of January 1892 my name
word Julia in the address sMy Dear julia" n one
Of the letters referred TO the crossnterogatoy there
were these words 81 was tho temptern the letter II"
being underscored do remember the fact that the
letter contained these words and do now distinctly re-
member this structure and form; they made that i'm
preston upon that they remain fixed in my memory
these words the only literal expressions to which
have testified, or am prepared TO testify with absolute
certainty believe that in immediate connection with
Qpf - Aftorvv rda
there was time when Edward would consent
that Il should break the bonds, although
there was this statement in substance and
think In the above words, but have that dis
tinct recollection that would enable me TO say with abso
lutte posveness that the statement was made In these
very words and Of course have not distinct and
particular remembrance of the structure and form OF the
words used in making the statement; all can say In
respect these any Of the words contained in said
letters and notes (other than the words II was the
tempter or to which have spoken particularly that
remember distinctly that the whole Of said letters and
notes in the defendants handwriting with which
have been well acquainted for ten years the words
letters notes of which have distinct clear remem
brance there were of course In the letters the words
therein contained and to the substance OF which
have testified, but ! have special precise recol
lection Of expressions or words other than above stated
] cannot give with absolute certainty the exact Ian
guage characters in which either of said letters
notes written except the expression ~ was the
tempter' which contained in Of the letters
can state all that said any one Of said letters
notes. what have stat I'd the contents Of any
Of said letters notes is not all and everything that
said therein cannot testify positively as to what were
all the words OF sentence in each In every
Of said letters or notes, except the above named SEN
tence'I was the tempter;' did not invite the cor
respondence referred to in the crossinterrogatory;
have recollection Of ever having given TO the defend
amt any noS Or implied that
and their contents, and each Of them, should
not be known or communicated to any one but my hus-
band; ] have no recollection of ever having given her
TO said letters either
OF them, the contents or either, do remember
ever TO have written to her to that effect nor 10 have
verbally assured her 10 that effect do not
Der to have written or said anything that subject;
did not far IA can recollect invite her conversations
and confidence under assurance that what she might
say should bc known only 10 my husband; showed said
letters and notes to my husband they rospec-
tions which have testified the days respectively
which they occurred my brother Peter the plaintiff
and Judge Murray Hoffman are the only other persons
to whom have communicated anything respecting
said letters and notes. either OF them, the
contents OF either the fact Of said con-
vcrsations OF either Of them having occurred,
the subject matter thereof Of either Of them and in
respect TO these persons have TO say, FIRST that have
stated in detail TO my said brother Peter the
lars OF either Of said conversations though in my letters
10 and conversations with him have referred TO said
Hoffman, have had personal interview with him, and
the communication between on the subject arose In
this way Judge Hoffman, In February last wrote TO me
that this suit had been commenced and that he consider
cd my testimony would be very important; in reply
gave him statement Of the receipt of Of said letters
and the destination OF those that had destroyed and
mentioned Of tho particulars Of the same and Of
said conversations, and at the same time sent him tho
two letters OF 1888 as have stated cannot be precise
to the dates OF my letters to conversations with my
brother Peter, spoken or In this answer the subject OF
his misfortune Of course spoken OF referred TO be-
tween when we met or alluded TO in our letters
from the time Of its discovery in January. 1852
and ! cannot undertake TO be precise as TO
o in ~ e sas 0y NE pS
mail except the two notes addressed to wsverley
which two notes were brought 10 me by the plaintiff;
know that received these letters and notes from the de-
PENDANT because they In her handwriting because
they above stated because OF their subject
matter and AZ to some Of them because they parts
of correspondence between the defendant and myself
the letter mentioned In answer TO the seventh direct
interrogatory was received by me- believe, in tho
second week OF January 1852 and the note mentioned in
that answer the last week OF that month and early in
the next week thereafter believe; TO the letters
ana notes nm, my % as ssn ana n
eve, about az f0llowsTha OF APRIL 1862 early In that
month that Of May, 1852 in that month"; that Of june
and August 1 1892 the latter Of these probably early In
August; the two letters mentioned by me In
wv 70 the g sr we're eT Re, r,
other about August 1885, only reasons for snppos
ing that the letters mentioned in my answer 10 the
Judge Murray Holman arc, that about March l. 1854,
sent them 10 him ny mail and he afterwards by letter,
sss.Swsdssd The rsc.p. Of them n some q Peters
him. either n waverey New York; BOTH after the
middle Of January 1882 he said that he hoped Mary hs
defendanp truly pentent that she gave evidences
Of this by her constant effort TO fulfil her duties faith
fully 10 him and 70 their children and at he believed
that she was doing all in her power % lead a con.
sstent Christian life; have no recollection Of the
plaintiffs ever saying anything TO me about hts
will. except once, which was at the time Of one
Of my visits 70 Wayeriey in 1885, the precise tImo
cannot recollsct further than that was in August
or September; IL took place ~ We were riding In
mothers carriage from waverley 70 New York he spoke
Of will he had made a. / understood him. before he
had discovered his we's gu and said that he should
not change H. lest he should die while her guilt remain
ed concealed for he TO do and take from her
the guardianship Of the children conferred upon her by
the WILL II might cast suspicion upon her, and lead TO
the discovery OF her guilt and thus disgrace his chill
dren; that he thought she sincerely repentant and
DESTROYS 10 fulfil her duties faithfully to her children
and he thought would be better the risk OF eav
ing the children under her than TO hazard bringing
disgrace upon them by showing want Of confidence In
their mother by taking the guardianship from her and
cutting her of by his will do not undertake TO give
the precise language Of the plaintiff, but give 1t
nearly can recollect t. and, believe the sub
stance OF IL he may have stated in the conversation
what disposition the will made Of his property, but II
have forgotten IL. do not remember whether