The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-06-21
TRIAL OF JOHN II. suRRArr

The trial ofBuratt was resumed in the Criminal
Court yesterday morning before Judge Fisher;
Msssrs. CarriRtop, Pierrspont, and Wilson prose.
eating Joseph II. Bradley, ST. aud j.. and r. T.
Merriek for defence The room was denSeiy crowded,
and there wat larger number ofladies present than
on aOy day P'e'lous, who occupied seats within the
bar The juren were broushtin at ten o'clock, and
Immediately sftsrwSrd the prisoner.
The Jury having been called by the Clerk
Mr. Merrok. for defence, submitted a motion 10 the
Court asking nat Carroll Hobart, @. II. Bllnn and
Sergeant JOSEPH W. Dye DO recalled for the purpose
Of allowing def,aee to put some additional questions
A. cross -examinstion. They thought the questions
were necessary 10 bring out certain facts to the
knowledge Of tie counsel since their exam ination.
Mr. Darlington objected, He thought the rule was
that when the witness had been examined and cross.
| examined his examination was at an end.
After come CONSULTATION with Judge Pierrepont,
Mr. G. Withdrew lis objection, and said he did not
feel himself uudsi any obligation to keep witnesses
| Mr. Wilson here entered and stated that the wit.
| nosses had been allowed to gohsme with the under
standing that thsj would return II necessary.
Mr. herriek thtught all witnesses should be re-
| tanned Judge DIN had sdopted such q rule In he
Brown and wyile case, aud Witnesses should not be
allowed to go unless by agreement Of counsel. The
this court 81 trial days.
| witnesses or noti
| Mr.. Wilson Notunless the Judge directs u.s.
Mr. Bradley. Taose witnesses have been dis.
| charged without the consent Of the Court or the
Mr.. Carrie gton objected to the Court imposing on
the prosecution the obligation Of retaining witnesses
here during the trial After the examination had
been m de and witness cross.examined the rule Of
law was that he could b. dismissed and bic exami-
| nation was Al an end.
Judge Fbhsr said In his own experiences Of
had never net such rule ana tRS ssSsa Ss
could show the fqls he would be much obliged, and
| be governed byN II was not proper for b i'm to
| rule on hearing gentlemen either side say such
and such was the rule bui the sane should DO pro-
| dueed.
Mr. Bradley We say it Is a discretionary power
| with the Court.
Judge Fisher We will proceed to examine the
witnesses 'nd see II you want any others aud let It
Mr.. Bradley said the practice Of M. Fen all when
he was District Attorney, and the practice Of the
present District Attorney was TO notify the other side
| b. fore disehArging the Witnesses
Nj. Msrriek to the Prosecutors. Gentlemen, do you
| decline 10 recall etherof those vitnss,esP
| Mr.. Darlington. We do. We object to the gentle
maa renewing the examination and compelling us to
bring witness back. The prosecution had right
| to ct the witness go after he had been examined.
| Mr. Wilson tsii Susan Jackson had beea dis.
| charged, but was In the city.
| Mr.. herrick. Will you recall her!
| Judge Pierrspont. We will recall her.
MT. herrick We moye,your honor, that an order be
made that Carroll Hobart, Charles Bllnp, and Ser
geAnt Dye be recalled.
| Mr.. NJ continued, and said they expected 10 show,
BY certain facs lately come to their knowledge that
the persons to whom Hobart referred in his testimony
as being the train in April, 1865 were taken on
| the train on Friday morning, and not on Tuesday
morning., as tcstined to BY him They expected to
| show that he made that statement TO an Official
| making inquries Of him. He desired to read what
was said.
| Judge Pisrrepont To what ofHeia'I
Mr.. Merriek deputy Of Col Baker.
| Judge PieirepOnt. Then 1t IL Bakers hook you
| propose to read from'
Mr. Merriek said 1t was Bakers book, and he was
satisfied that the prosecution In this case had papers
| which, II the gentlemen the other side had not
seen, might be before the close OF the Gaze Such
papers were now In the possession Of the Govern
| nent.
| Judge Pieuspont said the prosecution, too, would
like to offer In evidence some passages from Bater's
| ecutou would claim the same privilege.
| Mr. Bradley hoped the counsel would be allowed
to proceed without intsrruptLo1 He called Judge
| his objection, and not be interrupting 60.
Judge Perrepont said he stated his objection, and
| that was he objected to reading Bakers book.
Judge Fisher said no book not book Of law could
be read In court as authority, and II was generally
| supposed that Bakers book was not one Of fact.
Mr.. Msrrek said he did not want to read Bakers
book, bat only to show where he got his
from. He expected to show by Blinu that the two
men referred to In his testimony came up tho boat
on Thursday night, the Goth Of April, and not on
Monday night, the 18th, as testified to by him. He
would show by Blinn that he found two haudker
chiefs in the depot on Friday morning, one marked
surratt and the other not The object Of the prose-
euton to show the fact that surratt was at Mon
treal the 18th Of April and the defence wanted
show that he was not, aud would show 1t by the
prosecutions own witnesses. The defence would
show that the two men who slept In the Bnrn ston
depot on friday morning were pursued to their
homes In Broom Canada, by tho military there and
was asceTtained that neither Of them was SuTrAtt
but It asoertained who they were and the fact
reported to the Department b. re in Washington
That fact was then and Is now In possession Of this
Government, aud this Government knew now that
neither OF those men was surratt. He thought this
was good ground to order the recalling Of those
Witnesses. The prisoner here without notice Of
the witnesses 10 DO called against him. without notice
Of those witnesses BY whom the Government were
seeking to weave this net around him. How could
he DO pIepArod1 A judge exercising this disere.
ionAry power should be very cautious before saying
to the prsOneryou shall not recall the witnesses for
cross examination. In tho Brown and wyllo case
Mrs Brown recalled for the cross -exa mil ton
on the thirty fifth day Of the trial He desired to
read paper 10 support Of his motion to recall Dye
and began to read transcript Of record signed BY
Alderman W. W DougheIty.
Mr.. Darlington objected to the reading. Tho gem
tlenRn knew that such paper could not be ad-
mitted.
MT MerrIek 'aid he did not offer the paper as
evidence.
Judge Fisher said the gentleman must not read
the paper In the presence aud hearing OF the Jury
Mr.. Merriek. Well. l will pass It to tho court
Judge PlerropOnt said the prosecution had &C ed
very fair in allowing tho defence to recall the Wit
nss,, Ne had been frsque9tly told By counsel On
practice hero. lie was sure Of one thing that II was
not the practice here for a gentleman to make a
speech OF nearly an hour, arguing question of fact
aud summing up the cause before the Jury, stating
what he expected TO prove. The prosecution did |
not object to the defence recalling with sees, but
they did Obse to being compelled to bring the wit
nesses back here after they had been permitted to
go. II that should be the case, the prosecution
could make the defence bring back the witnesses at
any tins whom they might get au idea by reading
Bakers book, or some such nonsense
Mr.. CaEringtOn thought this melton was unprece
dented.
Judge Fisher said he did not desire to hear Mr. G,
as he OVerTulsd the motion. There must be aHa
dAyit something for the court to act before
tertaining the motion, and the gentleman was en-.
drey out OF order in arguing to the Jury over the
head Of the court.
Mr. herrlek said he did not propose to Argue to the
Jury, bat only to show his ground for the motion.
Judge Fisher. think We had better go on.
Mr.. Darlington. think It my duty, In 4 spirit Of
justice to brave and honest soldier, to reply when
a libsl has been published In eoATt by r. aiding 4
paper transcript Of record from alderman
where
Mr. Merrck said the paper cams to b IN III der seal
Judge Fisher called the gentlemen to oTier, and
directed that they proceed with the case stating he
oysrruled the motion as L was now presented.
Mr. Bradley. We will put It Ia the form Of an
Rhdavit, and submit 1t to the court.
Edward l.. smOot was called and sworn Witness
resides in Charles county, harylRnd resided there
since JAnutry 1857; removed there from Prince
George county about one mile from suTrattsVille
knew Mary suTrat; knew John II. surTAu; had
hout o. witness In January before the assassination
he remained there one night Witness saw him
quite often. He never acknowledged he had been
to EiehmOnd, but said II the Yankees knew what he
had done, OF was doipg, they would stretch his
neck; be smiled, and said they would stretch his
old ntek,' sons such words Did not remember
what occurred Afterwards, He would laugh when
wiin-ts would Joke with him about going to Rich
moHd did not remember what was said.
BY Mr.. MeTrick Moved from Charles to Prince
George county In December Of 1854 surraH was
alone when be came to the house OF witness. The
conversation with Surrau was after the assAssinA-
tiOn wItns was summoned to appear before the
District Attorney had been examined since he had