The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-06-20
Trial of John II. surrat,.
lued from he Second Edition

AIidi OI JOnu He SurraCBs
Continued from he Second Edition
WAsHINeToN, June 2O-Mr. Bradley said ne had
neen mlsunderstood he intended TO convey the idea
e sound Sron Of oST s9eei % %Ss Within
iohe he proposed to lay foundation for upon
Mr. CarTington repeated he had no objection to the
not wish 10 bs ey m were here put he did
Mr Merrck asked II they would recall susan Ma
Mr.. Darlington said she was in the city and could
Mr.. Merrck said that case was then ont OF the way
and II only remained as to the recall of Blinn and
them recalled, and he thought the motion would be
granted when he stated what he expected to prove.
The defense had received information which would
enable them to show that IN April; 1885, when the
that the parties to whom he referred in
als testimony Ts!n4 o,,o as having, got on the train
on Friday the 2ist Of April and not on Tuesday s
had made the Statement was brought to the know.
ledge Of the defense after the examination had closed
That this was so he would read from the statement Of
Hobart, as made TO Government official
from It when Mr PeFrepont nteFruped and anted
TO know TO what Official this evidence had been
Mr.. Merrick-An official who was a deputy of Gene
Mr.. PierrepOnt asked If the book Bakers
Mr MerTcE said It was in Bakers BOOK. and If Mr.
PleIrepont had never seen the prosecution in this
about H. The paper referred to was letter TO General
Mr.. TierTepont wanted to know IL Bakers book and
its contents coulo be put In evidence. He certainly
Mr.. Bradley objected to these incessant Interrupt
tons and he asked that the rule be strictly enforced
Mr.. Bradley called him TO order, and demanded
Mr. P PeTrepont said he had submitted his objection
and asked the Court to rule upon It, He objected to
The Court said he should certainly sustain an OBJ
except a law book. Everybody knew that Bakers
book was not one Of law, and it was generally
Mr.. Merrick said he did not propose to read from
posed TO read st tenient of what he proposed to
prove II the witness Hobart was called. He proposed
IN elpyv nj he w "a facts
were fresh in his memory, Hobart stated that
on Friday April 81, instead Of Tuesday, April IS, and
that his statement on that occasion correspondent
the time when the men were carried; AS to Blinn,
ment before April % corresponding with that made
yesterday, except to the date when the men came
positiveiy liked the date from the fact his brother
S neht a and that IL was on Friday morning the
witness was put the train II was the object The
the afternoon Of april Is, 1855 tha' he was at St.
ton the Disht OF the i7tb. on his way to Montreal
as against the defense IuTposed to prove that the
the train on Friday morning, and not on Tuesday,
Canada, the men having alleged that they lived IN
Canada that they were pursued and tracked to their
ener Of the men were surrat and these
Of the United States Government and the Govern
po WSs Upon
discretion Of the court should induce Tue alloWanceof
mSS1 on the eoDe gae Of Of s Ihs
On and & 5 Or the
it is attempted TO weave about him. A Judge
o6g ms Saying Rs wou3 not
the material facts In civil case the recall of Wit
ness would be allowed and that has been uniformly
Brown case' Mr. Bradley was permitted to recall the
recall of sergeant Dye Mr. MerrcE proposed to read
a transcript from the docket Of Alderman Dougherty
early GSTt Of 1897 for p%aSSsng % Sa note on the
Mr.. Merrlck was reacingithe transcript, when Mr..
Darlington objected TO the reading and SAID II should
MI Merrick said he did not purpose to offer 1t in
evidence simply read 1t as the basis of his appl
Judge Fisher said the paper must not be read in the
b r te Sss tae aed oes % I
the District Attorney. he (Mr. PierreponD suggested
did not know at the time that these witnesses had
gone home but ME- & Ws9n the Assistant s , Attorney
parted for their homes.
counsel for the prosecution consented that she oe re-
called Could anything be more reasonable and fair?
he had repeatedly been told oy the learned counsel
where be had practised. He would ask the Court
whether, motion TO recall witnesses in order TO
questions of fact and sum up and tell what they
This motion was to compel the recall of witnesses
Counsel for the prosecution were willing TO extend
objections TO the recall Of OF the witnesses now n
the city, and the putting OF them upon the stand with
all the advantages of cross examination within the
proper limits but they do protest against their being
compelled to bring back here those who have left the
city should not be brought back unless ordered
to do so by the Court neither justice or law required
such proceeding
Mr.. GarTington-Is not the application somewhat
unprecedented A witness has been fully examined.
After the examination in chief. and the erossexam
nation have been completed
The Court, interruptlng Mr.. Carrngton-I don't
want TO hear you further. No motion ought to be
made unless founded on an affidavit which the Court
inspect, -
Mr. Bradley-It will be put in shape.
The COurt-It Is out of order for gentlemen to make
arguments the jury about the facts they able
prove The proper mode is TO support the motion by
an affidavit.
argue the case, but If the motion was founded
affidavit he would be compelled to present his
sons why the motion shoula be granted. a.,
Mr. Bradley 10 Mr.. Pieriepont-Hou did not sug-
gest that the motion should be supported by affidavit
William K. Cleaver, livery stable keeper, testified
that snrrett in conversation with him, said he and
Kill that id old scoundrel Lincoln; Surratt, at the
time pulling out pistol and laying II on desk at tn
stable.
a. previous to the assassination; Booth and Sur
ratt' transacted that livery business with him. -
From Fortress Monroe.
FORTRESS MONROE, June l9-Arrived frigate
| Susquehanna, from the Portsmouth ~. H