New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-06-02

Of Infamous character o. Mar Smith and Arthur Jones
witness proved 20 have beer VGi 70 give h testimony aN
hcsss tat sacb Evidence was a. tue mosi conflicting and
mrruhahe character ~ MARY Smn such sane
man could heheTe tLa the testimony OF tAese Nhues.es
hi as % hal on! CLARION 20 ne elaise iEAAsl n III
entirely untrue and c0ntralicfod boy large NUMBER Vi
witnesses whose credlblity wholly vnimpsached a.,
The depOnent then denies that he OF wealth OF sg
70 pay the cKpenses Of the defense a Wen az ls own
income under 5000 AMI Le Only receive no'ilg u
his fathers estate but has largely contributed auihs s
last year tue expenses Of hs mother household. ths ns
ega expenses have been greatly increased by the ahduco
Of his child and the criminal prosecution that be has awa
been willing support his child whenever sic shaN he
brought openly within the Jurisdiction OF this thai de-
PENDANTS father o. great aiih and estid ID q ~ be
had paid many thousands dollars De used the defense
,ro - r,sise S,r bs- md tle expenses OF Tie action
Nj Nj Keon the close Of the reading o. his affidavit
requested eage read his reply 70 tie allegation Of an oue
reference nnd asked to g. snsWef the new matter con
Mr. Cram areued that this wa method Of practice
that had awaSs been te re tat tle counsel lola spe
The particular facts which thy desired to offer eondo-
Mr. McKeon stated that they wished to offer aadsyt TO
explain the matter o. Gle labcas corpus ard sh,e i.l ~
the Of accident He wished thai an
he dissenting Jurors 70 show why they ft unable noqnt
Mr. Strong Another they wished 10 show that MI
Srong was present al some o. tec facts Oh TIE Last 'AJ
The C0ur required them 90 reduce % exact statement ihe
position. ol ne au e. ", g 1 u e de ~ q d.,eus,loa
arose and 10 was finally decided o. TIE OBJ
matter Utlue lrrctNAtts ahi filiuhH hfF'"ir ~
port OF the trial so far necessary shoGd BE- submitted
Mr. Mckeon then proceeded argument the main
question lie had hoped that TIE the ia IN December
this case which almost rational disgrace by the PLAIN
tiff They bad sought 20 avoid IT, bui IN vain Ia that ta
evidence had been given ia her ab'ence IRON
tons had with bis client appeared that had she
been by trial the milf mus. have been booted
statements Che jury o. court mere nuy ana no
than the statements OF any person cat OF court bIi
tf had shown his character clear ho cond not avail MN
self OF IT, The granting % nlnony was almost mutet Oh
course the wife party suit against het nus
band any where appeared she had real defense
TINS had been held whcTee wife had been actually found a
bv Jury OF adultery aud after felic against her BESIDE
she shows that hs defended herooi WIN Success DO Fe
dict heyne been rendered against her dGne seven Weo
trial and was entitled allowance o. defend herself upon
seoonu VA t ~ @ erSer of the serere Court rea.
for which the Supreme Court wa ven ho
length. citina various eases % support them .
Mr. Cram. FOR the plaintiff argued tia II appeared ana IN
decd tiey ayoUod that the decsc dd not ant 10 "a, t
case Ii further appeared from ih statements that e
had expended her private fortune aud paid back iA re-
e a. me- lq--e number OF wnes,es that for
desiring reference Much Of irfe amt and on ei
erenoe be excluded T. was the defense which had
dragged tins Immense Of matter into The Gaze
NJ Cram then rruel th main question tlat IA TIL case
the defendant having dared t. ver' her own answer aAd
almost adj ttng through her counsel tho charges a. aist
her and in fact taking those e boss ~ her case wa not
sustain a her . case Bat II lie Court ihond consider emit
tied then oil beg ttnt thl rcry Object 0 tLt tl
in oen deflncc aud contempt Of the law hla icca spirited
away bv tlo defendant Tie obtc tlc suit Ao poo
the children bat Che ueendlni knoc@o. tus as
intending 81 She succeeded 20 obtain her children oar she
we're defeated hem defiance a. The law % retain the one
had with her Ihs Court should not crant such ar
allowance without imposing o1eoi The terns thai tbs cha
be brought WAL the Jursciction'of the Cc1rt
Aaan thouV the defendant hst right 10 pubc tri,l
still as th granting Of aiony favor the Court might
presbe Vi the efs that TIE case b. tired before
refree and hu the newspaper witch hsd go strongly repro
baieL he case renewed from Publishing tie evidence lie
thought ais Wold under the ccumncea b. proper con
don n the Court should decds galt ary goh allowance
a. AL
Air Ms1<eon and Mr. Gcrry replied.
The CYur. ypVt the papers. resergiug IT. fecsi9n