New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-01-17

n @ r tbt she was arrested as stated that
20 before Grand Jury and make the statements pnoshed
before them Whether they would believe mat her state
.ns wee true was another question pcrhaps half might
be.ve her and half mott but II they all believed that she had
50 stated md before Grand Jury tAa was enough lor Tie
Not ali tie publication wss belons Mr. Hall read tn. FIRST
part Of the alleged libel claIhs aI' s io, I IT,,
Gus He would make one inc'dsl'a pis'ne 's'
Mr. ecsps believed that Miss Mcivor had hred his house be
have believed she had some motive WA. nose eonlo
she hav. had supposed she had other than the
wrongs stated by her Another thihs' Inc Pa'hn wouia
say that he did want money eut Only 70 Gear ms
ton Now there iIo er "a, IN rms court N which
be di not want money he might clear s reputation That
suit the suit Of MeIvor ss erae counsel reads, she
is an orphan girl without rcstses IN the city Did the
plant know when he directed has counsel to call her
pronisate woman Counsel MI Tead hs Remainder OF Nh
ation bn asked them odd this TO the long list OF cases in
which ses had ecEdemned Psntn ., who, Tor tho SAKE Of
Nj Luthers Finer testified was, from 1860 70 1865 Clek
Of the Grand JaIy i9r Hudson cSany Ano" the plaintiff
Q Have 70 s,y odcial knowledge Of her attendance be-
Mr. iIap,ay objects h. the proceedings before Grand
| jury cannot be heard here. Objection ovcriuled
A. She appeared IN ito hrst week tlnS OF the October
Term Of 62 thns the term commenced the third Tuesday
O. What did she testify to at TIA, time to the charge
OBJECTED TO- Mr. Iuntey argue, that person is permit
to repeat snohe libel SANDER scstheles miles, such
libel Islander in Judicial proceeding which Grand
jury is not Besides. there is another objection.
The CooT,-1he witness has corrected his statement The
Grand Jury llet on the iTst Tuesday.
The Court admitted the evidence.
could no, ~ she testified 10; she testified that she
wa, in WesicooE County and received letter from him
11es;iny her call him that when she went there she
found the family oil but him; to his having dragged her
and tuasas with he and finally said be accomplished
bis purpose she testified his having had connection
with her at various places, 10 ms nmins h h,
house % lis having procured medicine. Tor her.
TO his having ven her money 10 20 away TO her having bee
seamsires his any and to other things can't remem'
nr all she testified 10. The article from Tao NereWyw
then shown 70 the witness. could give my answer better
by stating In what prospects 1t dilers from my recoecton
nv cctor IL that stated she went receipt Of
letter from him that is different nom that statement dont
remember her tcsiyiug to anything sbou, it becoming
public in the church. but in public generally remember she
said that he her money 70 get msdec no giyo her
medicine Witnoss mentioned some other slight dference-
She sid the time think August two years before the COM
paint.
spcc 10 these ,natersl (Obected 20. Mr. Hall contends
proper evidence in mitigation. The Court admitted the
.v'dcncel A. | have no recollection Of hearing anything
about these matters before they came into my hands a. cefI
These papers came into my hands as Cleri Of the Grand
jury in october 1852 they all the papers which
into my hands there an affidavit M.s McIyor there.
(Mr Hall offers them in evidence. Papers rcceiyed The
against Annie McivOr snd her discharse are also
among these papers, know Justice Bedfods handwriting
Cross.exsmned-As Clerk, in the srandjury room
while Investigations are ben; mad, 'ase 'hp testimony ~
told her story. il Is my duty e do 50. 49,
(Mr Huntley strike out his testimony. Motion
Sometimes some Of the Jury take notes my duty TO
take the testimony that bill Ia found the pubic prose
may the grounds Of it recollection Is ha; she
wore the time year previous TO the compliant
remember the month named in the affidavit and in her ie't
Jury did no, End bill sgaiu. Dr. Mecsbc; did no, take
Miss Mclvo. whole testimony only enseayored 70 get hs
both times her complaint was rejected the second iime vas
in Nay, 1883 Mr. Mecabe pa, IN no evidence OF del,n'e
know ne that he said he would know what she was
of she said she showed her indignation by si,Dpy
leave the room don't remember her saying that the pes
:s.i arese Ia copse1acucc that Il hi, ears.
nor iLa' hi. Ea'y conscience began to sting him
she dd not say tia, Mecabes un9Jat set, don
rccoec her spying iha, Mecahe had been dismissed e
rnuch; he times said she an injured woman
have not talked this matte. Over ese,P' 10 M ragpa a. ,e
evidence wa. taxed NJ Mecnne di not 50 pr1re
IN. house she stated that he locked the door and put he 10y
bis pocket; related TO anybody connected with The
Sundat reaJv what occurred IN reference 10 thot charge
William yooEhes. scoau'elor Of NowJer-y' tes'lted-l
counsel Mis- Mclyor in two Or three ca,es was
present the part Of tho prosecution In the charge she
made for s..ao ssd sG "'i s,s Rs, - s her
behalf when 81. defendant where charge wss made
asa., her by Meesbo she was arrested Dad ese, pat
alteIw ard relea cd the preliminary examination; wit
brought 20 prove the charge against herr slecaoe
ws present with HE counsel ig lgve. silon IN
s;.chsrset tho way 7 hnt became her counsel was
through the influence OF lady with whom 80 lived
Marsb bsfor Ier arrest by him thnk hsa head
Of he Intimacy Nth him. snd before h.s arrest her
rsn, had herd Of these sdairs tbs -;cry
About around generally Asd heard from tho gossip q
the community that there ,f ion9e improper inmlcy AID
with thi. iady h,d heard he'e rumO before ,hs
made any statement to council think before the I'm
o. October bad seen II in The Jsy'ey Guy Sfandsrd
Crossersfrined-Tho lady mentioned was an Lnsifh
70 he collection Of drafts; she 10 ue md begged
mo 10 end 70 Mi. Mcvor. case Representing; that ho was
gooI H s % S.Se me- SIC TO sena to the preliminary e,sa
nation other ladies Of The congregation called on me
any ~ c sry st ,. and me GOOD
{. thew moth
counsel for her before the know several
or. q, ~. name Of Prngle think Mr. Lshtbody one,
aered TO give bali for her remember her saying any
thing about Mr. Browns suggesting reason FOR the
charge ssa he, a Ae sada H. 20 s lS s1yea
counsel can't tell exactly wha, were the Tumofs about The
par,ie, before her sret did no. Know either c,ho parties
rest, say whether saw hor before heard these
funor. il al occurred aooI mo ,alHs se iae9n y he
do TO tain about other peoples Affairs heard talked
rbout in house eans ,iy whether bad
body a.o poaL Of e. Justice Allen stopped tall about
many came N 70 zee me bo ana "a. .S eas S's ns m H.,
knew moro about the case than ! did.
Re drcctThe ecclesiastical ,ia occurred before tie publ
cation this article fix that by my borrowing the notes q
Mr. Brown for Of the eranaons gave the facts on.
OF two VI tho reporters who called rie wha. they wrote
Album 10 10 a. IN. today
QUESTION OF CREDIT AND cRFDTBILIrY.
Max Freund eg, Ernest A Levy.
This was a claim on sale ot 8 bill Of goods for
s53 So which the plaintiff caims wa, for c,sh With de
ducon Of five per cent il Paid within % day. The defend
ami sets VI u, 1t the bill sold three months credit aud
10 prove his case Introduced bill for the goods on which the
wods "sh" lad been erased end three month"; inserted
An expert With msguin glass testified that the lni
OF dieTont shade mud tho writing unlike tbs rect of the
writing tie bill Wrtirg' Of the defendant were pa, 10 in
orig 70 resemblance between this insertion aid the
handwriting Of the defendant.
Tie Cont charged that IL the terms claimed by the
ran they were entitled but II credit lad been
liver or three months the ,at brought before the
praton OF that time then .ho defendant vas entitled 10
verdict. .
The Jury rendered verdict for the plaintiff for Eot TO-
Henry Morrison and A. s. Cohen for the plaintiff Levi II.
Mccoy for defendant
SPECIAL TzRu-JAS. lG.--Before Justice ROBERTSON
DECISIONS