The New York herald., 1867-06-21
YRIIL OF JOHN II. S'RRlYT.
..>~.~>1o~~~~-~~~e>~~>-~
More Evidence Of the Prisoners Pre-
sence In Washington April IA.
,..,--,>.,.>..,,,
Gurratt Informed Parties Of the IRten-
tiOn to Kill Mr.. Lincoln.
~~>>~~~~>~~~~>~~>~~~-~~
What the Defence Proposes to
Prove.
SMALL ROW BETWEEN COUNSEL.

WASHINGTON, Juno %, 1867
Tho trial Of John H. surrast resumed this morn
ing In the Criminal Court, Judge Fisher presiding
There increased attendance the part Of spec
aator The number Of ladies in attendance has in
creased, and they occupy seats within the bar.
Tho prisoner brought in II ten o'clock and the
roll Of the jurors called
Mr. Mcrrick submitted motion asking that the wit
ssses Carroll Hobart, Charles H Blim and Joseph NJ
Dye BE- recalled for tho PURPOSE Of crossexaminaton
apon points which have TO the knowledge OF the
Asfenoeancc the other examination closed
!, Mr. Darlington felt IL his duty 70 object
Nh hMerriok saidit matter within the sound dis
son of the 6oc. and the recalling was necessary to
. just trial Of the case. -4H-
Mr.. carpgton Withdrew his objection, as he not
disposed 10 throw any embarrassment in the way Of .
fair trial.
Mr. Wilson said he thought the witnesses referred TO
had boen discharged and gone home.
Mr. Darlington said in Withdrawing his objections he
aid wish TO be understood as acknowledging
nnder any obligations to his witnesses bere
Mr.. Merrck said he hoped witnesses would be dis
charged except upon the consent Of both parties He
lnstanced the of Brown wyle and other cases.
70 show that witnesses had been retained during the
whole trial for the purpose being recalled II necessary
Sour trial days.
The Court suggested that ii probably the retention
OF the witnesses that prolonged the trial.
Mr.. Bradley asked il the prosecution proposed 70
Tccall these witnesses
Mr.. Darlington said not unless the Judge directed
3hem to do so.
Mr.. Bradley said tho witnesses had been discharged
without the knowledge Of counsel.
Judge Fisher said that in long experience he had
heard Of rule that allowed witnesses to be
called in the proposed. If there a rule
upon that subject he would like 70 see il
Mr. Bradley said he had been misunderstood He In
sandsd TO convey the idea that the rule within the
sonnd discretion Of the court The defence therefore
proposed TO lay foundation the case upon which
she court could rule
Mr. Darlington repeated that he had no objection to
Abe call Of the witnesses IL they here but he did
not wish to be compelled 70 keep Witnesses here.
Mr. Merrick asked II they would recall Susan Ma
honey.
Mr. Darlington said she was in the city and could be
SsoaIlsd at any time.
Mr. ksrrck said that case was then out Of the way,
md only remained the call OF Bnn and Hobart
and be therefore submitted motion to have them
called, and he thought the motion would be granted
whom he stated what he expected 70 prove.
The defence had received information which would
wore fresh in his memory, Mr. Hobart stated that the
parties 70 whom he referred In his testimony having
Got his train at Essex Junction got on that train on
% np On s, Sp ~
made the statement was brought 70 the knowedge Of
me defence aiter the examination had closed That
As So he would read from the statement OF Hobart
- made to government Official
Mr. Aorick took up book and was about to read
Mr. Pferrepont interrupted and wanted TO know what
sfncial this evidence had been given to-
NJ Nsa~~l Atlrsal A.r,x -
I. c. Baker
NJ Pierrepont asked II the book was Bakers; IL so
he had never seen II or the paper.
Mr. Merrick said it in Bakers book, and II Mr.
Feepont had the prosecution In this
and the government had seen II and knew all about It.
The paper referred TO was letter to General L. C. Ba
ker
Mr. Pierepont wanted to know il Bakers book and
Us contents could DO put IN evidence He certainly OBJ
Mr. Bradley objected 70 these lnccssan Interruptions
and be asked that the rule be strictly enforced.
Mr. rerrepont said he would state his objection.
Mr. Bradley called him to order and demanded that
Nj herrick should be allowed 70 proceed.
Mr.. Perrepont said no had submitted his objection,
and asked Me Court to rse upon IT, He objected to tho
reading OF Esksr's book.
ins Bakers book, any other book except law book.
Everybody knew that Bakers not ono OF law, and
was generally doubted whether u was one Of fact
Mr.. Merrck said he did not propose TO read from
Bakers book or any other book. He simply proposed
" read statement OF what he proposed 10 prove II tho
witness Hobart recalled He proposed to show that
before April a. 1885, when the facts fresh
memory, Hobart stated that he had carried the men
described yesterday Friday April ~ instead Of
Tuesday, April ls and that his statement on that occa
sion corresponded exactly with his evidence OF yeser
day, except TO the time when the men were carried
A TO Bnn the defence proposed TO that he made
. statement before April 27 corresponding with that
made yesterday. except a. to the date when the men
cAme 10 the depot at Burlington. They would show
that he positively fixed the date from the fact OF his
brothers death and that his mother absent the
witness was pu, upon the train Il was the object Of
snc prosecution 70 show thai surrau was In
). ~as s ST. 81 Assns us'n the o. morning M or ss sns
lSsh and was ai Burlington the night OF tho lTth
hn way 70 Montreal. As against that the defence pro-
yoeed 10 prove that the two described by Mr. Bnn
were put on the train on Friday morning, and not on
fharsday; that the two pursued through Yer
nn2s @ Canada The men have alleged that they lived
r.,osas. That they were pursued and tracked 70 the
~ ,ns ,.n and u was ascertaned that neither
she department At thee. facts % were reported
ssos Of the United States government and the
depot was John II surratt This statement anc
the fact that this motion was q matter for the
the motion on the side OF ussies The prisoner her.
without notice OF the witnesses for the prosecution
cannot know until the witness placed upon the stand
what kind Of ne, work attempting 20 weave about
him judge exercising discretionary power should
hesitate long white before saying be would not
mor back witness hose re-examnatson might prove
thcee material facts In civil the recall OF witnes.
would be allowed, and that has besn uniformly In ,h.
Court and In the closely contested Wiley Brown Ar
Brady permitted TO recall the witness the thirty
fourth day Of the trial As TO the recall OF Scrgean
Uve Mr Merrck purposcd 70 read transcript from ths
docket OF Alderman Dorrty Of Philadelphia, showing
chat Dye arrested In the early part Of 1867 for pass
1ng counterfeit note on the First National Bank OF New
York. Mr. herrick reading the transcript when
Mr. Darlington objected 20 the reading and said Il
shond not be placed in evidence unless rs. submitted
20 the Court.
Mr.. herek said be did purpose offer IL in evil
deuce, he simply read IL the basis OF his application
10 rcall him.
Judge Fisher said the paper mus. not be read in the
hearing Of the jury
NJ. Pierrcpon. said that whes the motion arss
made by counsel for the defence and objected by
Dstrct Attorney, be tAr Pieuepont suggested that
Cerain witnesses be allowed 20 be recalled. He did
1now Al the time that these witnesses gons But
Mt wilson, the ASS slant Attorney had advised the
four, that some had gone to their homes Susan Jack
on however was IN the city, and the prosecution
ventea ,nd she be recalled Could anything bc more
. S"onaoie and fairy Now be met With some en-
snsmenA because he had repeatedly been told by
a. lesInsa counsel that the practice different here
frc what y vas where he practsed He would ask
abe Npurt Whether on motion recall witnesses In
order 10 continue the cross examnatiou IL was the pac
sice 70 yrsue Questions OF fact and sum up and tell