New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-01-23


Depau.row in 1868: Depaurow consists OF si1 houses
O. Did you ever heal Of the woman mentioned IN 'ns
article under consideration before the puDicatlon VI
that arclei A. may have heard ner nane us bsr
to my knowledge; should not know ner II "eIc VI
see her; never had any personal relations WIN ner;
don't recolect that ever knew OF any such person
occupying one Of the houses In Depaurow. Counsei
called witnesses attention to article recently pup
shed in The N- York World relating TO the supposed
elopement Of Wallst. broker with French actress
and asked witness he ever saw that article peore'
Witness had never seen the article before
O You take The World do you not A. do not
d Do you believe the woman referred TO In the
article in the The World to be the one retered 70 IN ne
article In The Police GdzateF a. nave not feao
the article in ThsWorid ,u.
counsel. o,h.,,,o,
O. Do You know If the actresses referred to In the
two articles are the same personf A: do not ,
O. Are You in the habit Of visiting Depiu'rowf A.
am not did not visit it for two years after removed
o. When you do go there is it usually in your car
rare or on footi A. Usually on foot.
Isthere ANYTHING in the article in The Police Gazette
beyond the general statement that the person meant Is
leading representative OF tie plethoric wealtn Vi
New York, yet IN tue ui sigor 81 nro'
prietors OF fortune that his commercial relations WIN
the principal business capitals OF the word are sIea
iuv diving importaons on the most extensive scar
mite 10 paw tribute TO his enterprise which induces
You 10 believe that you are the person therein INTENDED
TO be referred tor A. That the principal statemeus
which brings the matter home to me- also the aluson
TO the ownership Of the property In Depaurow inie,
that il was intended refer TO me from the general
tone and tenor Of the article.
Judge Hilton, was there anything In bis remarks that
led you infer that you were the person intended 70
he pointed out by the article or did you 50 infer OF your
own belief A inferred 1t myself at once; said at
once, Glow could Mr.. MAtsell print anything 80
unjustr
inaton by the defendants and invite their investiga
ton Of his daily conduct TO the fullest extent either on
the charge OF immortality contained In the alleged libel
upon any other agreeing that the attempt OF the de-
feLdants sustain their defense on the ground OF usti
fcation may cover the widest ground.
To this liberal offer the counsel for the defense re-
piled that the alleged libeous article contained no
reference TO Mr.. Stewart, either BY name or by such
description would be applicable solely to hi to the
exclusion Of any other person. aud that the defend
ants aege that the said article was not Intended to
refer to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had produced
no evidence prove that the article In question was
intended to refer to him. that therefore, In Judgment
Of the counsel any further examination at this stage OF
the proceedings Was unnecessary and they therefore
declined to make any such examination.
The cross-eI animation then continued.
o. Have you not since you left Depan.row, rented oil
the houses to various personsi A. have:
@. Have you received the rents promptiyf a. Gen.
eraly 60.
Q. Have you not heard since you removed from
Depanrow that there was such person as the actress
described in the Article in question: living In one OF
those housesi A. have been informed tina! she did
live there.
MR.. LAMBERT's OPINIONS.
Mr. William G. Lambert sworn, and stated follows:
reside at No. 25 West Twentieth.st.; my business
is that Of commission dry-Ro0ds merchants / am q
member OF the firm Of George. Richardson Co., do
ing business at No. 81 Worth.st; l formerly was Q
member of the firm Of A. & A. Lawrence &. Co., I
have been in business In this city about Is years.
o. Do You know most Of the leading merchants and
business men in this city over co years Of agei
Q Have you read the alleged ibelOus article referred
Counsel for defense objected to plaintiffs counsel
using the term "hbelous" until . libel had been
Question changed Have You read tho complimentary
article referred tot Objected to- but question finally ad
mit,ei.. A. have read what suppose to be the
@ From your knowledge Of the wealthy merchants
and business men Of NewYork, to whom do you think
the article in question was intended to referf
Tho DistrictAttorney suggested that the question
might be competent.
The defendants counsel argued that where an alleged
ibelous article specified any particular person either
By name by any peculiar circumstances or personal
peculiarly which clearly identified such person TO the
exclusion IT all Others such questions were competent
but not otherwise The defendants stand here charged
with act which Is crime They occupy the position
Of criminals on trial. and are therefore entitled TO the
benefit Of any doubt which may arise In the case. /
In which libel could be proven In case Of this kind
was by the testimony Of competent men a. to whom
they believed to he meant BY the article 10 question
At the suggestion Of the District Attorney the ques.
On reading toat article did 1t Immediately suggest TO
your mind any particular personf A. II did.
@ whomf Objected to, but finally admitted. A. A.
T. Stewart. /
@ when did you first see the article. A. Yesterday
evening.
O Who showed it to youi A. No onoi bought tho |
paper and read the article.
Are you in the habit Of reading TIE POLES GasasS
TAe Police Gdetse but in one Of the morning papers.
never the article in The POLES Gssas until 1t was
,bown 10 me here.
Q. when you read the article in the morning paper
Sid you not also read the heading OF that article A
10 not know; I suppose did.
O. Was 1t not from reading the heading and CONTEXT /
the extract that you concluded that MI Stewart was
he person meantf A. read tho article and concluded
hat Mr.. Stewart was the person meant
O. Did you not read the statement that "deporent II
he person meant" ETC. A. read the whole article
BY INTERCHANGEABLE you not read tbs prefix |
ND s9nteI. ., sas sssa, 0u mat
should not have hesitafed moment; know VI no /
,ther person to whom would 50 directly spply a. to
W. Stewart
o How long have you known Mr.. Stewart A.
WHAT Mr.. PALMER THOUGHT
Mr.. CORTLAND Palmer sworn: Am resident OF New.
York City, have resided here about 50 years; am |
veil acquainted with the principal merchants and bus
q. Have e. you rs.a til. tc. in IA. Ssou., Police
1a;ais headed Veteran Rouei A. The article read
vas in one Of the daily papers
Paper handed 10 witness. |
q. State whether not on reading that article 20
ar az IL purports 70 be an extract from The National
attached TO It suggested 10 yoa any particular person
u tts ns7s0p jutfDdadf u dA