Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-01-25
LOCAL NEWS.
THE CASE OF GEN. l.. 4. BAkEKaNp
FE Mr.. AND MRS. COBB.
The Pardon Brokerage pu.i...
THE q
CRIMINAL COURT, JUDsK FIsaHR

Il
Mr. Bradley said there ought not 70 Oe any
| onerence between counsel this sus,e,S
The general prstice prevailing all pracace in
| .nt courts was well known. There are no cer-
] am oenned limits. but the rule wa TO beet
never seek to show maj the witne.s is AZ,
| 80 upe oy opening the book Of her life, ~ or
Tr.dIaa Ina .he Jury might Rad n All Mr..
Dieeiey argued mat AZ witness was i'm
y pure woman, or an unchAste man AZ wns mi a
ss Sonsic.-s..on 20 oe weighed by the Jury, nor
injury was = pronsr one y @ OF witness ~ the
Nesngation, especially az the Offer was maze IN
good faith he argued that attempt was
| made 10 sneer the character away, and uhen
| objection was made they had the bener, oT 40
! The principle OF the thing was wha; was on
Jeeted to. The only question was 10 Tue
| Neiacity OF ne witness, for there was scarcely
| a man who would be Willis q to have the whole
| book Of life laid open.
Judge Fisher desIded the counsel could con-
| me Their questions TO the examination in chist
| v Nh n view Of questioning her credlbiIIty
| Ley nay examine INTO her business within a
| rsa. BILE tme back, one or two vearS IL
| wCpid hardly be fair TO 90 back three years
| Niih regard 10 tie question as 10 whether she
Was married before she came here, thai, he
| thCuP hi, wss pertinent QUESTION.
Gross examination resumed.-I have not
| passed by the name of Mary Livingston for tho
| past TWO years, nor that of Miss Mason. 4 have
had no other name IN the iast tive years than
my own. i was not married when i came acre
| in le6l MY maiden name was Lucy Living
| SION. was married i'm Baltimore two years
4
| was at the Avenue House at the time of this
transaction. believe had seen Baker twice
| before.
| Question.-Were You ever before arrested oy
| General Baker.
| Objected 10 by Mr.. Bradley
Mr.. Riddle said he wished 10 show that the
| witness knew VINO General Baker was: that
| both parties had been arrested, and that her
hus band had had hIs straps torn from b,s
Mr.. Bradley said that remark was evidently
| for tie jury.
The Court said the counsel might show the
| particular of an arrest.
Mr.. Stanton said he proposed % prove that
the witness and her alleged husband were
| rested before their marriage, and while they
| were cohablting together.
The Court said they might ask the witness Il
there were any prior transactions that caused
Witness resumed, and said Baker offered her
| no violence, but demanded four S5O treasury
| notes; don't know how he knew / had he
| money; did not examine the notes 10 see n
| they were marked; / received the four notes
from Clarence ]. Howell. upon consideration
| OF obtaining pardon for him.
| Mr.. Stanton.-Then you were in the pardon
| brokerage business.
Witness-I was in the business Of earning
| an honest living, as every woman has n right
| TO do. i procured paIdons or engaged in any
| other business that was honest, legal, or legItI-
| mate. i don't know how long was ia the
| business. had procured three or four par
| dons pre- yiously.
Mr. stanton then read a paper, signed Mrs
| tion of the sum Of S3OO she would take the
| statement of Capt Clarence ]. Howell and
| procure for him pardon for all past offences;
| SlUU 10 be paid down, and S2JO to be paid when
| the pardon should be procured. In the event
| OF failure the SlOO was 20 be returned. On
ihe back Of This paper was a receipt for slcO
| signed by Mrs. Lucy l.. Cobb.
! Witness did not think the top part on
| the document when she signed II.
| had been despatched to the White House and
| returned with the original Of the above docu-
| ment, and after some discussion il was
After examining il she said il seemed TO be
| the receipt she had given, but as her memory
| served her she thought the receipt had been
| written at the bottom Of the paper. The 500
! was paid on November 5th. This was Sunday
| and witness promised 10 have the pardon ready
| for delivery on the next evening. Did not get
| the pardon the next day, and the 500 was not
| paid until did get the pardon. The money
| had been obtained about i've minutes before
| was arrested. The money was handed me by
| Captain Howell, but did not give him the
| pardon, because / was pledged to file the am
| nesty oath with his petition and he promised
| TO come the next morning at Q o'clock and 20
| with my husband 10 take the amnesty oath.
Captain Howell gave me the money because he
| said be knew il was all right i did not hand
| Baker The notes until be threatened 10 hand
| cuff and search me. He did not say he gave
| the money to Captain Howell 10 give 70 me.
| He gave no reason for taking the money any
| further than he said he would break up the
pardon brokerage business. When Baker first
| entered my room he did not say he wanted the
| 500 paid me by Captain Howell. Mr.. Spear
1 was preseut during the conversation, but 4
cannot answer for his hearing Baker did not
say he had been watching pardon brokers un-
tt after he took me away from nv room. L
never told him that would give mp the 200
| ifthe transaction was not made known, bnt he
1 asked me not TO say anything about it II was
| known j was in the pardon business or any
other business 10 make an honest livelihood
| for myself and husband. At Bakers ONCE no
| one was present but himself and /. A gentle
| man came into the Office, spoke to Baker, and
4 nAsSp0 Il know
The door was closed, but do not know wheth-
| er 1t was locked or not In that conyeTsation
| did not state that did not know why Ishonld
| be arrested. / told him L did not know why
| he should persecute me-a woman-but said
nothing about any one else. l said nothing
| about a Mrs. Washington, but Baker showed
me a receipt signed by her. i did not tell Ba-
| ker could get pardons in six hours when it
took others six weeks TO do so. 1 told him that
| if he intimated that / got pardons by foul
1 means he could think as he chose, but il was
4 another thing to prove it,
| Q9sstion;-Did You have any influence at
| Answer-My labor showed for my inn uenee.
| Questionable you not give Baker a list OF
| persons for whom You had obtained pardOnsl
| Answer.-1 did.
| Witness was asked 10 give the names in the
| list, but Mr. Bradley objected. II il was de-
| sired the list itself might be brought here.
| Howell himself might be a myth, as were
| many other characters that Baker had conjured
| up in this community. But suppose he did
| get a list, did that give him authority TO make
| this arrest Has he the power of the Tycoon
| or of the Grand Mogul, that he can arrest
whom he pleases! Did that give him justih-
| cation
| Mr. Stanton said the question was not offered
as in justification, but as testing the crediblity
| Of the witness. They had a right 10 question
| her as to all points in the transaction.
At this point the Court adjourned until this
| morning, at 10 o'clock.
| U. s. .SUPRRNECoURT, Jan. 2i.-George W.
PusShaL Jr, Esq, Of Texas, Chsancey Tuck
| er, Esq, of New York, Henry IL. Wells Esq,
1 of Washington city, ID. c. and James X. Ed
| sail, Esq, of Illinois, were admitted attorneys
| and counsellors of this court.
| No. 1O4. Richard 8 Blackburne, plaintiff i'm
| error, VS.. Lessee of George I. Craufurd ct al.
| The argument of this cause was continued by
| MI. Reverdy johnson for the plaintiff In error,
| and by Mr.. Brent and Mr.. II. T. Merrick for the
| defendants in error.
COURT OF CLAIMS, Jan. 2i-The argument
of causes Nos. l,s7l, I,s72 1,S73, lsS4 l,sl5 and
| 1855 was resumed by Mr.. Ketcnum, the sollcl-
| tor, and Mr.. Weed, the assistant solicitor, for
the United States, and by Mr.. Gillet for the