Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-01-29

,he con viction OF such court he weuld nst
attach such consequence 70 the paper as 70
render a witness competent or incom petenL
Mr. Stanton offered in evidence the com
mission Of General Baker-his resignation as .
Colonel, and orders appointing him as Brig
adler General, July 3lst, ls65.
Mr.. Hughes objected, but subsequently with
drew u. and the papers were read 10 the jury.
Mr. bradley here offered IN evidence the en-
dorsemeni OF the President and Of MIR. Pleas
ants, The pardon clerk, on the back Of The Pc
ution.
The endorsemen Is sThe Attorney General
will issue pardon in this case, the party, -
1 am Informed. Is now an the city, Andrew
Johnson" the pardon dateo November SIN, And
The original receipt OF Mrs. Cobb Tor tSJS Tor
procuring the pardon.
Mr.. Bradley sisted that these papers had
been sent by the President.
Mrs. Dr. Mary ~ Wdlkoy sworn for thr
prosecuuon.-Witnessw was during the war
the service of the Government IS contracs
surgeon. Witness has met = -. Joaes on sew
eral occasions, and recently she came IRON
New York in the same car with Jones.
Mr.. Stanton objected.
Mr. Bradley proposed TO show that Jones
told her that be Wa IN the service OF tss War
Department snd that be was not IN the en- ploy
of General Baker.
The objection was sustained.
Witness knows Mrs. Cobb; never heard her
character for truth and Neracity spoken Of, her
character among her associates Is good . re-
CARDS truth and yeracity; witness has fire.
quentIy been in Mrs Cob6's company.
MIR Bradley stated that he had but ono other
witness, who WAS not yet present He would.
however, state what he expected TO prove, thai
the Court might decide whether it was adsni.-
sible or not The defense was that the act Wa
done for proper motives, nd be offered to prove
by publications made down TO the eve OF the
trial that Bakers motives were malicious.
Mr.. Stanton said he would object TO suoh
testimony, and the O1urI stating that sach svi-
dence would not be admissible.
The evidence wa. declared closed.
Mr. Darlington, for the prosecution, offered
the following payer:
II the Jury believe from the whole evidence
that the defendant, through one OF his agents-
by the payment OF the money mentioned in tho
indictment, induced Mrs. Lucy l.. Cobb 10
present a false petition, she at the time beilev-
ing IL to be true, and presenting IL in good faith
for the pardon OF one Clarence j. Howell te
the President of the United STATES; and that
after the pardon was obtained the defendant
without warrant or order from the President
by color of his office, being at the time a Gen
erni and detective OF the War Department
rested or caused to be- arrested. imprisoned or
detained in custody, the said Mrs Cobb, and
without her consent took possession OF the
money paid her as aforesaid, they should dad
him guilty indicted.
Mr.. Stanton offered the folio wing prayers on
the part Of the defense:
]. Ii the jury find that the prosecutrix volnn-
tarily went with the defendant 20 his head
quarters without any restraint OF her person.
hut on the simple request Of the defendant
then he is not guilty of false imprisonment.
>. If the jury find that the defsndau; express
ly disclaimed making arrest of the parties
and the prosecutriX voluntarily went with the
DEFENDANT TO his headquarters and remained
there without any actual restraint Of her per-
son, then the defendant is not guilty Of false
imprisonment.
3. IL the defendant demanded the money
mentioned in the indictment hIs indi-
yidual property and not by virtue OF his Office
and the authority thereof, then he rs not guilty
of extortion, even though the money was given
up on account Of menaces used by the defend
ant.
4. IL the defendant believed the money was
rightfully his own, and demanded a. OF the
mr. der hat f.alfR nd no gaA
threats In order to induce the prosecutriN TO
give II up, then lie as guilty OF mere trespass
and not Xtortion.
S. II when the defendant placed tho money
in the hands of Capt. Hine he did not intend ~
part with it then the title TO th- money dad not
pass away from the defendant, and he had a
right 70 recover the same.
g. The business Of obtaining pardons from
the Executive by the use of money and OF per-
sonal influences lie immoral, and any contract
made in pursuance Of said business is illegal
and void. II the jury find that the money in
this case was paid 10 the prosecutriN IN pursu-
aEce OF the contract which has been proved
then the money was wrongfully taken by the
prosecutrix, and could not be rightfuuy re-
tanned by her.
7. 1.-THE prosecutrix voluntarily gave no the
money upon the demand of the defendant
without any restraint of her person. even
though the money may have been BIER own or
that of her husband, then the defendant cannot
be gound guilty OF entortion.