Evening star., 1867-06-20
THE TRIAL OF JOHN n. SURRATT.

More Witnesses testify to Surratts being
here on April 14th-Jacob Thomp son's
Bank accOunt-Testimony to connect
sam. Arnold with the Conspirators.
The Court met this morning at ten O'Clock
when the prisoner and jurors were brought
in. The room was densely crowded, and there
was larger numoer OF ladies present than on
any day previous, who occupied seats within
the bar q ta
The jury having been called by the Clerk
Mr. Merrick. for defense, submitted a mo-
ton TO the Court asking that Carroll Hobart,
q. II. Bhnn and Sergeant Joseph w. Dye, be
Iecai leo for the purpose of allowing defense
TO put some additional questions as cress.ex-
animation. They thought the ques ttons were
ary to bring out certain facts come to
the knowledge of the counsel since their ex-
animation. rfAi
MIR. Darlington objected. He thought the
ruse W as that when the witness had been ex-
amined and cross-examined his examination
was at an end. . .tsN n.E-
Alter some consultation with Judge Pierre
point Mr. u. withdrew his objection, and said
he did Lot feel himself under any obligation
ito keep witnesses during the whole trial
Mr. Wilson here entered and stated that the
witnesses had been allowed TO go home with
the understanding that they would return If
necessary. ....-.r --,H
Mr.. Merrick thought all witnesses should
be retained Judge Olin had adopted such
rule in the Brown and Wylie case, and wit
nesses should not be allowed to 60 unless by
Gardner case had been retained in this court
81 trial days. 5.-'t -.. ...,. 49,
Mr. Bradley-Will the United States recall
those witnesses or notl
MIR WIlson.-Not unless the Judge directs
us.
Mr.. Bradley.--Those witnesses have been
discharged without the consent of the Court,
or tn knowledge OF counsel on either de.
Mr. CarrIngtOn objected to the Court i'm
posing on the pro- -ecution the obligation of re-
tanning witnesses here during the trial. After
n h,1,
cross examined, the rule of law was that he
coulabe dismissed and his examination was
at an end.
Judge Fisher said: In his own experience of
twenty five years, with fl i've years as prosecu-
tor, he had never met such q rule, q nd If the
gentleman could show the rule he would be
much obliged, and be governed by it. It was
Lot proper for him to rule on hearing genIie-
men on either side say snch and such was the
rule. but the same should be produced.
Mr Bradley.-We say 1t Is discretionary
power with the Court.
Judge Fisher.-We will proceed to examine
the witnesses, and see if you want any others
and let it he known.
MIR. Bradley said the practice OF MT Fendall
when he was District Attorney, and the prac-
tice OF the present District Attorney, was to
notify the other side before disc harging the
witnesses.
Mr Merrick to the Prosecutors.-Gsntle.
men, do you decline to recall either of these
witnessesl
Mr. Carring gton-Wedo. We object to the gen.
tleman renewing the examination and COM
pelling us to bring a witness back. The prose.
cution had right to let the witness 90 after he
had been examined.
Mr.. Wilson said Susan Jackson had been
discharged but was in the city.
Mr.. Merrick Will you recall herl
Judge Pierrepont.-We will recall her.
MT. Merrlck-We move, your honor, that an
order be made that Carroll Hoblrt, Charles
Blinn, and Sergeant Dye be recalled.
Mr.. III. continued, and said they expected to
show, by certain facts lately come to their
knowledge, that the persons 20 whom Hobart
referred to in his testimony as being on the
train IN April. 1865, were taken on the train on
FRIDAY morning, and not on Tuesday morn
ing, as testified to by him. They expected to
show ttat he made that statement to an Off ciaI
making inquiries of him. He desired to read
what was SAID.
Judge Pierrepolnt-To what official?
MI Merrick.--A deputy of Col. Baker.
Judge PIeTrepoint'-Then it is Bakers book
you propose to read from.
Mr.. Merrlck said it was Bakers book, and
he was satisfied that the prosecution In this
case had papers which, if the gentleman on
the other side had not seen, might be seen be-
fore the close OF the case. Such papers were
no :" in the possession Of the Government.
Judge PieIrepoint said the pro -ecution, TOO,
Would like to offer ia evidence LONE passages
from Bakers book. If the defense were al
lowed 10 DO so, the prosecution would claim
the same privilege.
Mr.. Bradley hoped the counsel would be
allowed to proceed without interruption He
called Judge PiezTepoint to order. The gem
III,
lnterrupting so.
Judge Pierrepoint said he stated his objec
tion, and that was he objected to reading Ba-
ker's book.
Judge Fisher said no book not a book of law
could be read in court as authority, and it was
generally supposed mat Bakers book was not
one of fact.
Mr.. Merrick said he did not want to read
Bakers book, bat only to show where he got
his information Eom. Heexpected to show by
Blinn that the two men referred to in his tes-
ha hnot
night. the 2Uth OF April, and not Monday night
the 18th. as testified to him. He would show
by Blinn that he found two handkerchiefs in
the depot on Friday morning, one marked Sur
ratt and the other not. The object of the prose-
cution was to show tine tact that Surratt was at
Montreal on the 18th OF April, and the defense
wanted to show that he was not and would
show it by the prosecutions owR witnesses.
The defense would show that the two men
who slept in the Burlington depot on Friday
morning were purs ued to their homes in Broom
Canada. by the military there, and it was as.
certaned that neiser of them was Surratt, but it
was asceTtained who they were and the fact
reported to the Department here in Washin gton
That fact was thea and is now in possession
OF this Government, and this Government
knew now that neither OF those men was Sur
ratt. He thought this was good ground to
order the recalling of those witnesses. The
prisoner was here without notice of the wit.
Resses to be called against him, without no
tice OF those witnesses by whom the Govern
ment were seeking to weave this net around
him. How could he be preparedl Judge
exercising this discretionary power should be
very cautious before saying to the prisoner
you shall not recall the witnesses for cross.
examination. II the Brown and Wylie case
Mrs. Brown was recalled for cross -examina-
tion on the 35th day of the trial He desired to
read paper in support of his motion to recall
Dye, and began to read q transcript of a record
signed by Alderman w. W. Dougherty -
Mr.. Darlington objected to the reading. The
gentleman knew tha, such paper could not be
admitted. r -rt -
Mr. Merrick said he did not offer the paper
as evidence. '"n
Judge Fisher said the gentleman must not
read the paper In the presence and hearing of
the jury.
Mr.. Merrick.-Well, will pass it to the
Court.
Judge Plerrepoint said the osecution had
acted very fair in allowing the defense to re.
call the witness He had been requently told
by counsel on the other side that such and
such thing was not the practice hare. He
was sure OF one thing. that-it- was not the
practice here for gen tleman to make q speech
OF nearly an hour, arguing a question Of fact
and sum ming up the cause before the Jury,
stating what he expected to prove. The prose-
cation did not object to the defense recalling
witnesses, but they did object, to being com.
PEELED to bring the witnesses back here after
they had been permitted TO 60 Ii that should |
be the case, the prosecution could make the |
defense bring back the witnesses at any time
when they might get an idea by reading Ba. |
kore book, Soma sucf nonsenaA