The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1866-01-27


: Justice Bowling, at the magistrate S
room IN the TOmbs building.
The prosecutor Ess represented by
ex Judge Hilton; the defendants by
& T. terry, ESQ. District Attorney
Hall was also present, and offered oc.
easional suggestions TO the counsel on
either side.
M srEwAET oS The STAND.
8lr. A. i. Stewart, the plaintiff In the
case, was placed on the stand He is
s gentleman apparently on the wrong
side Of sixty, about five feet six inches
in height, rather slenderly and sparse
ly built, and, in the carriage of his head
and neck, beginning to show the effects
Of life Of toll and care.
Mr. Stewart testified as follows.
reside st No 355 Fifth avenue; ! for
uerly resided st No Dspau Row; that
is No l62 Bleecker street; l resided
there about twenty years.
2 Who is tire present proprietor Of
Depau Row
| objected to on the ground of irrelev-
alcy.
! Counsel for prosecution claimed that
The question was relevant as the alleged
libel WAS leyeled at the proprietor of
Lepau Row.
| Question admitted
Mr.. SteWart-I am the present pro
Pietor Of Depau Row; my rents are
Buslly received quite prom ptly have
Rad the article referred to in the com
paint
z To whom do you believe that arti-
ce was intended 10 refer.
Objected to- Question admitted.
| A To me my attention was first di-
rscted 70 the article on Saturday last
b, Judge Hilton; Mr.. Libby also spoke
q me about it; | removed my resi-
dsnce from Depau Row in 1863; Depau
how consists of six houses.
q Did you hear Of the woman men.
toned in the article under cousidera- |
ton, before the publication of that i
artiele
A. l may have heard her name as
oae of the troupe at the French Thea !
tie; / never saw her, to my knowledge; |
should not know her if / were 10 see |
ha; never had any personal relations
with her, / don't recollect that / ever |
knew of any such person occupying one |
q the houses in Depau Row Counsel |
alled witness attention TO an article /
recently published in the New York /
World, relating to the supposed elope
m,nt of Wall street broker with
Fnnch actress, and asked witness if he
ever saw that article before. Witness
had never seen the article before.
z. You take the World, do you not ?
A. do not
{ Doyou believe the woman referred
in ne grticle in the World to be the
ons referred TO in the article in the
Police Gazette2 A. have not read the
article in the World
The article referred 10 was then read
aloud by the counsel.
9. Have you ever heard that article
sIDken of belOre2 A. have not
Q. Do you know if the actresses re-
feried TO IN the two articles are the
sane person2 A. L do not
G Are you in the habit Of visiting
Delau row?
4 am not, did not visit il for two
years after ! removed my residence
from there
" " AACh IVA w EO IS II A2uHA+ I
ly inyour carriage or on foOR
A.Usually on foot
Q Is there any thing in the article
in ths Police Gazette, beyond the gen
eral statement, that the person meant
is "a bading representative of the pleth-
oric wealth Of New York, is yet in the
full vgor of active business life, rank
ing hsrdly second 10 any of our impe-
rial uOprietors Of fortune: that his
commercial relations with the principal
business capitals Of the world are stead.
lily involving importatiOns on the most |
extensive scale that German industry,
British skill and French taste unite 10 |
pay tribute 20 his enterprise, which |
induces you to believe that you are the
persol therein intended 10 be referred |
tof
A. That is the principal statement
whiehbriDgs the matter home 70 me;
also tie allusion 10 the ownership of |
the property in Depau row; / infer that
it was attended 10 refer to me from the
genera tone and tenor OF the article |
Q Aher your attention was called to |
the artide by Judge Hilton, was there
any tbing in bis remarks that led you |
10 infer nat you were the person in
tended e be pointed out by the article,
or did ysl 50 infer of your own belief |
A. / Inferred it myself at once; l said
at once "HOw could Mr.. Matsell print
any thing so upjust,'
Judge Hilton-We now, offer Mr..
Stewartfor examination by the defend
ants anc invite their investigation Of
his daily conduct TO the fullest extent.
either ln the charge of immortality
containd in the alleged libel, or upon
any othG, agreeing that the attempt
of the defendants 10 sustain their de
tense Onthe ground Of justification may
cover tn, widest ground
To thh liberal offer the counsel for
the defense replied that, as the alleged /
libelous ahicle contained no reference
10 Mr. Stewart, either by name or by
such description as would be applicable
solely tOhim, to the exclusion of sny
other person, and that as the defend.
ants allge that the said article was not
intended 70 refer to the plaintiff. and
as the Plaintiff had produced no evi-
dence toprove that the article in cues
NA0u MN1AANNAAt+eAA ~ ANAtA W lALAl. LnaL /
Therefore in the judgment Of the coun. ]
sci, any further examination at this
stage OF BE proceedings was unneces-
sary, and they, therefore, declined 70
make ant such examination
The c,oss- examination then con
tInued
Y Have you not since you left Depau
roy, rsned ali the houses 70 various
personsf
A. hHfe
Z Have you received the rents
promptly
A, Generally so
z HAZE you not heard, since you
removed from Depau row, that there
was such q person A. the actress de
scribed in the article in question, liy-
ing in one of those housesy
4. bafe been informed that she did
live there