Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-07-22
THE EVENING STAR.
Scene Between Csuusel.

witness whom they expected, but had failed
to meet him he had received a telegram an
nouncinG that Mr.. Boucher left M ontreal Fri.
day morning. He was due here this afternoon.
but may have missed some Of the connections,
and it was very probable that he would be
here In the next train.
MIR. Merrick asked chat the defense be al.
lowed to examine him Monday morning, or at
any time, If he should arrive. He thought it
was N after with the discretion OF the Court.
The prosecution could 60 on with their rebuff.
ung testimony, and the defense could examine
DIR. Boucher when he came in, he being the
only witness
Mr.. Darlington said the prosecution did not
like to proceed with the rebutting testimony
until the defense had closed.
Mr.. Bradley asked the Court to limit the time
for the defence to examine Mr.. Boucher until
Tuesday, and the prosecution could commence
the rebutting testimony Monday morning He
had told tho District Attorney what they ex-
pecred TO prove by Mr. Boucher, and the prose.
cutioR need not offer any rebutting testimony
as to his until after he should testify. He took
go on with rebutting testimony to night, and it
was very probable that the witness would be
here by Monday and the Court could allow
prosecution opened.
Judge Fisher asked If there were any wit
nesses which the defence desired to examine
this evening. ~f.# Ea
Mr.. Bradley replied, they had single wit
ness, by whom hey would prove certain dates.
Judge Flsher.-Well call the witness and l
VIII think about this other matter.
Mr.. john J. Reeves was then recalled and
examined by Mr.. Bradley-Witness produced
his ledger and testified that he took tn e meas
ure OF John Harrison for the G aribaldi on the
9TH of April and delivered the same on the 9Th.
~ Mr. responsibilities made NO suit
for him after that.
Mr.. Caring ten said the prosecution was in
hopes OF closing their rebntting testimony In
TWO days and he hoped the Court would re.
quire the defense to close their testimony this
evening.
Mr. Bradley said ii was very probable that
the defense would have some re outing testi-
mony, bnt as tue case now stood he was will
ing to submit ii to the jury without argument
and thought they mig hit make such a proposi-
aon at the end of the testimony.
Judge Fisher asked If the counsel would
agree, that If the witness Mr.. Boucher was here
Monday IA orning, at ten O'Clock. the defense
would examine him, if not they would close
their case, and the prosecution would 60 on
with their rebutting testimony
Mr.. Bradley said that was perfectly salts
factory 10 MIN: Mr.. Darlington also agreed to
The same; and the court took a recess until
understanding that the defense should ex.
anime Mr.. Boucher. and no other witness.
PROCEEDINGS TO-DAY.
The trial OF John II. Surratt was resumed
this morning in the Criminal Court before
Judge Fisher, the usual crowd being in attend
ance. 1t is a noticeable fact tn at MANY, among
whom are quite a number OF ladies' h ave a..
tended tAe trial regularly since the first day,
and they are 10 be found in their usual seats
every DsIOIe Inc opening OF the court.
al III O'Clock the jurors and prisoner were
brought IN, and the court was opened at half
past 10 O'Clock
Mr.. Merrick asked the privilege OF examin
Ing Mr.. q ueen. He had been summoned last
week, but was too III TO attend. He was in
courtthis morning, and the examination would
take but q few minutes.
Judge Pierrepoint said they would not OBJ
Ject; and Edward +. Z ueen was called, but did
not answer.
Rsr. Charles Boucher was then sworn and
priest and resided in the Parish OF Saint Hill.
are, Canada In April, 1865, resided IN the
about the I'D OF April, 1865. He was brought
10 the house OF witness by Mr.. Dutilliea and
remained at the house about three menths al d
then went to NJ ontreal Witness sa " MIN two
or three times a week until he left for Europe
Q.-Do You know il he received any infor.
nation from the United States as to the condi-
ten of his mother.
Objected to by the prosecution.
Mr. Bradley said the prosecution had
charged To at he fed like coward and desertsd
his mother. He now desired to repel the i'm.
putation and show that be kne " thing about
the danger his mother was IN.
Mr.. Carrlngton said it was against all rules
of evidence 10 admit such testimony
Mr.. Merrick said toe defense certainly had
eright 10 contradict the statement.
Mr.. Pierrepont asked if the Court would
allow the prosecution TO call witnesses to con-
tradlci all The statements the counsel fer de-
feIse had made.
Judge Fisher said he did not think the test
Mr. Merrck said he was perfectly willing
that the counsel for the prosecution should
bring witnesses TO rebut any statement made
by the prisoners counsel.
MIR. Merrick said he could show by this
witness that when the prisoner learned Of tn
condition OF his mother he desired TO return to
the United States, but was restrained.
judge Fisher said such testinl ony was against
me rules OF evidence, and could not be admit
ted. -
Q.-Do You know Of the condition OF the
health of prisoner!
OBJECTED to- Objection overruled.
Witness resumeo:-Th prisoner was in
poor nealth, and suffered from fever and ague
Witness sometimes thought he would die. Wit
ness knew Dr. Lewis j. Mcmillan Knew him
in the township OF Shefford. in 1860 or 1861
Had opportunities OF knowing his reputation
for truth and veraclry; his character was bad.
witness had contest with him, but not in re.
latIcn 10 any money transaction. Witness
owed him 50 paid him, aud had his receipt
Mr.. Bradley said he now proposed to give
In evidence the cause OF that quarrel
Dir. Pierrepoint sai. he did not object, II the
Court would allow Dr. Mcmillan to come on
The stand and reply
Judge Fisher.-Oh, yes.
hlI. Bradley. You have have perfect right
Witness resumed. spoke to Mcmillan about
principal he disliked. 1t was on account Of
an abortion Witness tsld him it was wrong
it was not Heard com plain Is against MeMii.
Ian, and one day, while he was passing the
house of witness, he had nun called IN, and
loio ulH NC uuSt NOT pI6ctlce 6OOluO0S among
the people, it was wrong. Mcmillan grew
angry, and used hard language. Wltnes took
MN by the collar and put him out Witness
had no hostile feelings against Mcmillan.
Cross.examined by Mr. Pisrrepoint.-
Knew a gentleman whom Mr.. p. pointed on.
Or. Erskine,) he was the physician OF witness
In CANADA. Did not remember il he was
present when witness had the difncuI with
Mcmillan. The difficulty occurred in the
house Of witness. When the quarrel, or con.
versation took place there was no one in the
parior except witness and Ur. M Milian. II
was IN the month OF June, 1864; witness LETT the
township OF Sheford that year. McMiian's
character for truth was bad. That was his gen.
eral reputation. Had heard M on sic ur Potont
and Mr.. Christopher McCrae speak of McMil.
Ian's character for truth, and say 1t was bad.
Had heard DanI MagilI spsak OF his character.
DR.. Ersk1pe had been called to the house OF
witness. Mcmillan was called to the house
once because there was nc other physician 70
he found. Knew DIR. Erksine yery we'll
Witness hrst went to She6ord eight years ago,
left there In the tall OF 1864. after 6einr thefe
nve years. Knew Mcmillan four wears. first
heard his character for truth Questioned in
1862 or 1853 His reputation did not grow
better. Witness left Shefford because he was
removed by the bishop, had heard there was
complaint made to the bishop. The bishop
did not censure witness for any OF his Conduct
Witness had often asked TO be removed, and
was removed for q better position
Z Was Dr.. Erslsine present when McMil.
ian insuitad youl
Mr. Bradley.-Hs has answered that question
already.
Mr. Merrick argnsd that tho question had