The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1864-1911, 1867-07-17
THE sURRATT TRIAL.

1he prosecution having announced on
Saturday that they bad closed their testi
mony, Mr. Bradley then opened the case
for the defense. They expected to prove
the innocence Of the prisoner and pure fame
of his mother. They would contradict
John NJ. Lloyd, a self-proclaimed, low,
groveling drunkard, in many important
particulars; Mrs. 0ffut would contradict his
statement from sober stand point. As to
Weiehman, a man who was treated as son
by the murdered woman, a man whose das-
tard heart made him quake for his position,
1t will he proven that it was not one of the
cnDspiri tors who called at Mrs Surratt's
door on the night of April l4th, that Mrs.
Surratt dId not answer the door that night,
that she never said the murder of Lincoln
was punishment upon this people for their
pride end llcertiouSnnss, that the conversa-
tiOn detailed by Weichman as having taken
place at the breakfast'table Apri! 18th. had
no place except in the brain of tie witness:
it will be proven that Weichman was at all
times under arrest, his confession will be
shown and il will be proven be was intimate
with the conSpiIatOrs; that what information
he obtained at the war Department, which
could be of benefit to the rebels, was com
municated to blockade.runners; the mans
character will be fully shown. As to the
testimony of Joseph NJ Dye, the dreamer,
we will produce the man who looked into
the carriage and the man who called the
time, ten minutes past ten, in an audible
voice; we will further prove the record of
Dyes Indictment as a counterleiter and
that he never had conversation with Mrs.
Sunatt as sworn to. As to Lavid Cread, a
uul N oil
will contradict him ont of his own mouth,
and prove his indictment tor criminal of
fense, and that he is unworthy of belief -
Cooper testimony is so indistinct that it is
unnecessary to contradict him. We will
contradict John Liebhy, showing that he
never saw or knew John Surratt before
testitying. aud is not entitled to any credit
upon his oath. Another witness, William
Eclener, fresh from Jail, for murder in the
vilest manner, of a little girl, and who af-
ter manipulation by the vilest of criminals,
Sanford Conover, Swears that he saw Sur.
ratt her. on April 16th-a worthy successor
to Cleaver, in Vanderpool-who will be
shown to be utterly Infamous. 1t will be
proven that he could not have seen the at
ternoon performance at Metropolitan Hall,
because none took place As to the testi-
mony of Wood, the barber, it will be shown
that he was mistaken Mr. Bradley re-
viewed the testimony Of other witnesses
and continued: We will trace Surratt from
Richmond, in March, 1865, to Montreal in
April; we will show that Re was not near
Washington, except when brought back in
the Swatara; we will show where he was on
April l4h and l3, and that he was not
within 400 miles Of Washington. 1t will be
shown that he went to certain town and
registered his name as John Harrison, and
remained there to attend to a mission he
was entvsted with and was there on April
l4th. 1t will also be shown that the regis
ter of that hotel has mvsteriously disap-
peared. He will be followed back to Mon
treal where he arrived April 18th. The
The facts and circumstances will be shown
to conclusively demonstrate Surratt could
not have got to the places names, for the
purpose Of covering up his tracks. 1t will
be shown thut while Surratt was in Mon
treal after the assassination he was not al
lowed to read newspaper in his place OF
concealment and was not aware of his
mothers peril until the event of her execu-
ton, and that he then wanted to hasten to
Washington to give himself up, but was not
permitted TO do So 1t will be shown that
he first heard that he was implicated in the
assassination while in Albany, and that he
then turned back to Montreal He did not
flee from fear, but because he knew justice
had dropped her scales when she entered
that building at the foot of d street. As
to the handkerchief, of which so much was
said, it will be shown that it was not drop
ped by Surratt, but by an officer Of the
government who was in pursuit, and that
he had carried the handkerchief with him
for that purpose. 1t will be shown that the
government knew tfat the officer dropped
ii, but did not wish to dvulge it. The de-
Tense would also show an agreement made
between the consoiratnrs and signed by
them, and upon which neither the name of
Mrs Surratt or John >urratt, appears.
This agreement will he produced as it came
direct from the chief canspirators and con
tainS the genuine signatures in which they
pledge themselves to commit the act Of
assassination and upon that neither the
name of John Surratt nor Mrs Surrltt
appears. And after these things are shown
the jury cannot be asked to say that the
prisoner is guilty of the charge preferred
against him