Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-05-16
THE CORRAL FRAUDS.
TRIAL OF ISHAM HENDERSON
FIFTEENTH DAY.

y
| can't say. lie lcil mules at my stable, frequent
| ly, aud directed me to put them in. did it for
him a favor
Mr.. y. Harsh was called and sworn: am far
mer and live five miles in the country. / have
known Mr.. Isham Henderson about three years.
/ sold him mules several times. Don't know the
dates. as | only kept pocket memorandum
receipt.
c. ID. Smith sworn: | am Chief Clerk in the
Provost Marshals office, Department Of Ken
lucky. at Louisville Before l took my present
position, was officer on duty in Kentucky.
know Mr.. llOge. at least have seen him several
times.
By Colonel COyle for defense State il you know
whether his testimony was made voluntarily be-
fore this court, and before Judge Advocate,
the first statement? State all you know about it a?
Objected to by Judge Advocate This only shows
attempt ON the part Of the counsel for the de-
Tense to introduce questions that were not admis-
sible, in the examination Of Hoge, by the court,
and cannot be permitted.
Counsel for the defense replied that the question
was legitimate from the fact that the witness, Hoge
might have been influenced in his testimony, and
the point aimed at was to ascertain whether he
Hoge) was improperly influenced. and which
would effect his crediblity.
Replied to by the Judge Advocate, that the
question not any longer open one as the
court had overruled it in the examination Of
Hoge. Court was cleared, aud the objection was
sustained.
Examination lie stated to me in this city. lin
reference TO the statements that he made to Gen.
johnson and Capt Norisl that he had been
used like a dog by those officers, and that
him to General johnson where he was put
under two bayonets. The way he came to say
what he did. ne said that these officers read to
him paper purporting to be a confession from
Colts and if had not been for the reading Of that
paper he would not have said anything about
these matters. But that after reading il to him
they told him that he knew all about it, and if he
did not tell them that they would send him to the
Penitentiary-tha if he did tell all about it that
they would pardon him After making these
marks, he seemed to be somewhat excited, and
said that they had lied to him and affrighted him.
There was a gentleman present at the time by the
name Of Maj. Blackburn. lie made the state
ment 10 me voluntarily, and that without any
solicitation.
BY Judge Advocate: The conversation took
place during the Friday or Saturday of
Stacey House | came hercsfor the purpose of
defending Mr.. Henderson, had Colonel Coyls
not been able to do so. Mr.. Hoge Mr.. Anderson
and myself were together often during Friday and
Saturday Of that week; it was not, however, by
"a Seeking
The conversation commenced by lIOge drawing
up his chair to where Maj. Blackburn and were
sitting and remarking that he wished that the
trial was over with-that he tired Of it. The
witness stated that he replied to lloge that he
presumed that there were several who would like
for il to be over. 1t was then that Mr.. Hoge made
the statement about being inundated by General
johnson and Capt. Nors.
have to some extent been aiding in getting up
evidence in this case. | was not notified by Col.
Uoyle the first day | appeared here, that would
be required to attend a witness.
By counsel for the defense: | come here with
the understanding that was TO receive no pay
during my absence. / aided in getting up evil
dence this far: to look the evidence and sug-
gest points and to gather information for the pur-
pose Of impeaching Hoge
W J. Cots was recalled by the defense: |
have known w. Mckay Hoge for ten or fifteen
years. from childhood up. l know his character
at home for truth and veracity. and it was
not very good. / can't say that l
would believe him oath, taking his character
into consideration. He made n statement to me
that he did not voluntarily give the testimony;
that he was arrested in Louisville, brought here
and taken to Capt. Noris, and that he Captain |
Voris) told him that some one had made con-
fession, and that unless he made one that he |
would send him to the penitentiary. lie then |
asked Capt Noris if he would allow him the |
privilege Of going at large in the city, who re
Piled that he would not-that he must confess it |
1r 90 to the pententiary. lie QIoge) remarked |
hat he was very sorry that he had given the tes- |
timony as the Captain had lied to him about
good many things. He also said that Capt. Noris
told him that if he would make confession that
he would give him a full pardon, and that he had |
received it.
The question as to whether he had ever soon the |
pardon Of Hoge was objected to by the Judge Ad-
yocntc and withdrawn by the defense.
The following question was then asked by the |
counsel for the defense State whether you ever |
had any conversation with Hose in relation to
What was to be done with Henderson's property, |
if he should be convicted whether said Hoge was
or was not to get any of said property; and if he
was to get any, what proportion, and what was to
be done with the remainder?
General Ward replied that this question was
legal and proper; that if Hogc was to get any of
lIendcrson's property that his testimony was
worthless. and if the witness is permitted TO
answer the question that they were prepared to
prove that hc lHoge) was to have received one
fourth Of Henderson's property. which would go
to the crodibilty Of Hogcs testimony.
The Court was cleared and the objection TO the
question was sustained.
Col. Coyle and Gen Ward then asked Ctots if
IIoge ever promised him reward if he would sus-
ain his UIoge'9 testimony?
Objected 10 by the Judge Advocate as in the
preceding ease on the same ground as the proceed
ng question.
Gen. Ward, for the defense. then ma the fol
owing reply: The question, although it may not
be material 20 the issue between the United States
and lshaw Henderson, Is very material to show
the urpitudc and want Of crcdihility of the wit
ness llogc. II is true, we can and have proven
iim unworthy Of credit, but we have a clear right
10 strengthen said proof by proving his attemat
10 bride witness 10 support him in his testimony
against the accused. Such an act, if done by him,
shows a want Of moral principle as destroys
him rs a witness Of truth, and in that way
becomes material fact in this contro-
lpou the witness. Cotts-for in no sense can an
offer TO bride affect any one except the man offer
ing such brides unless the offer is accepted, and
hen both are injured The idea that public pol
ley authorizes court to sustain witness for the
prosecution by any other rules than those legti-
mate 20 sustain other witnesses is not 20 be found
IN the books. All witncsscs' crcdhility must be
csted by the Same rules, and the mind Of all wit
lcsscs towards the parties may be shown, either
,y the witness himself aud by proving facts show
ug his feelings by other witnesses.
Judge Advocate replied: The law referred to
loes not refer 70 this case. The claim that the
lccuscd has a right t. offer evidence Of particular
instances Of moral turpitude, has no foundation
n law. There arowcll defined rules for the i'm
impeachment Of witnesses, which must be OBJ
crvcd. We do not claim any other or different
Jules of evidence than those allowed by law, and
hc'c. as We have before stated, are clear, show
ug that the question is inadmissable.
Court was cleared and the objection Of the
Judge Advocate sustained.
Adjourned TIL 10 O'Clock to-day.