Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-06-22

his mother to be safe with her property
| thought he said some thing about raising money
| on the proper Y. a-t+.s.#
The court, at 10 30, took a recess for 30 min
| utes. fy..
| Upon reassembling at O'clock
Mr.. Bradley asked that MIR. John Lee be re-
| called for further cross-examinaf alton, for the
| purpose OF contradlcting him fatty.
The Court said that he had already decided
| that point.
Messrs. Bradley and Merrick said that they
did not understand that the decision was
| final.
After some discussion on the views of the
| Court, Mr. Bradley said that the question was
| al the discretion OF the Court.
! Judge Fisher said that he had aires dy de-
| cided the question, and that If this privilege
| 70 recall a witness after he had been sworn,
| gave his testimony, and had been cross-eN-
| anIned and re. examined and dismissed by the
u party calling him, was given 10 one side the
same privilege would have tC be given 10 The
| other side, and in a cause like this il might re-
| 0ulre year.
| Mr. Bradley SAID that there was no ingenuity
! whereby the counsel might know what wit
| nesseS would be called, and facts which would
| tend 10 discredit them were not, therefor,
| known until after they had been examined 1t
was true that the trial might be thus protracted,
| but Justice should be done,
Mr.. herrick argued on the same side, and
| quoted from Sharswood's Starkey, on evil
| uence. page PAP, and I'd Rhoderlck and Bing
| ham 80, TO show that 1t Is competent 10 recall
| a witness to ask him as to declarations on
| which II Is proposed TO dlScreGlt him.
| Mr.. Merrick appealed 10 show that wit
| nesses who supposed TO be clothed in the spot
| less purity oftruth. Were masses OF corruption
Mr.. PIerlepont, fer the prosecution, replied,
| and claimed that the decision quoted WAS to
| the effect that witness could not be recalled
| to dis credit unless the foundation had been
| laid, and mat witness could not be recalled,
| eyenlt the facts tending to diScredit him did
| not come TO the know ledge of the party until
| after he was examined. He remarked that in
| his practice be had never heard OF one side ad
L % nfh fhaT sd IN hn hat m
| nesses We're -..
| Mr.. Darlington, on the same side, argued
| that the defense had failed to lay the found
| alton on which 20 discTedIt witness, and
| asked il it was right that they should charge
| the prosecution with a want of liberalIty.
| There was a proper time for contradicting a
| witness, and even If he was not recalled they
| might bring testimony to impeach his char
| acter for yeracity.
| Mr.. Pierrepoint read from Greenleaf on Evi-
| dence, 3D. vol, sec. 317.
| Mr.. Bradley said he obliged TO the gem
| tleman for reading that section; II had saved
| him the labor. He thought il remarkable that
| not one single authority or dictum had been
| submitted by the gentlemen on the other side.
| Mr.. WIlson.-We thought the question set
| tied
| Mr.. Bradley did not understand It. II
| they could find the action of any little one
| horse county court he would like to see IT.
| This Court would be governed in its decision
| by reason and the rulings of the Supreme
| Court of this District and the Supreme Court
| of the United States. The question is they
| "ltuesseS dS 10 Wudt ne salQ or
| did without calling him back. Gould
| be be impeached without calling him back.
TIE parties were expected TO come with proof
| relevant 10 the issue, and nothing more. He
| read from English Common Law Reports I'd
| Brod. and Blng., p. 229, the unanimous opin-
| ion Of the fifteen Judges of England, and
gued this was the way for the court to aseer-
| tain truth and crush falsehood. Could there
| be conceived a case Of more surprise than the
one now presented! How was 1t possible for
| the defendant to come with evidence except
| relevant
| know about Lee! The great object was 10 pre-
| vent proceedings OF injustice towards any
| party in the cause He next read from Sd
| Greenleaf, and said, suppose a witness goes
! out OF this courthouse and says, 81 have
| made good thing of it-1 said what was not
| certain off, could not he be called back!
| Mr. b. said he had proof in regard TO John
| Lee to show that three days after the assassin
| atlon while he was searching for the perpe-
| traitors of this crime. he declared he did not
| know Surratt, and had never seen HIM. The
| defense had had no opportunity to know who
| Were TO be called, or the character of those TO
| be called by the prosecution against the pris-
| oner Had the defense known anything about
| The witness, then there might have been some
| good ground Tor opposition by the gentlemen
| on the other side. Neither the prisoner or his
| counsel knew that this man TO be examined
| antil he was on the stand they could not, there
| FORE be prepared TO impeaCh that character.
| After witness had left the stand, and il was
| discovered that he had made certain state
| mentS contradictory TO those made the
| stand, all law, all Justice, and all authority
| was 10 the eU6CI tlaL the witness C0QlO De re-
| called. 1t was essential 10 the ends that the
| witness be recalled, TO show whether he was
| the witness of truth or of corru ton. He
| referred to another witness, whose name he
| would not mention now, who made state
| mentS in less Than half an hour after
| be left the court house which showed
| that he was the witness of corruption and not
| a witness of truth. They could show that two
| other witness were under indictments for pen
| ltentiary offences. Was IL possible that mans
life was nothing; that few dollars expended
1 hV the ITnItpd States ShOnld hp weiphHi
| mans life ? Would the court for a moment
isten to such an argument! He wished II TO
be recorded that if the defense introduced one
single witness against whom there should be
the least suspicion, they would assist the pros
ecution TO seek truthful testimony to show OF
their truth or corruption.
Mr. Merrck-We will call them back at
your suggestion.
| Mr. Bradley.-We will.
The authorities were submitted to the Court,
| and the decision will be given Monday morn
ing.
1t was agreed, by the counsel on both SIDES
| that the Jurors could attend church In a body
Tomorrow, in charge of their bailitfs.
| AT twenty five inmates before three o'clock
| the Court took recess until ten O'Clock on
Monday morning.
| THE QUESTION OF CORPORAL z PUNISHMENT.
Thursday Mrs. Emma ROyS, teacher OF fe-
| male primary school In the third public school
district, was arrested upon a warrant issued
| by Justice Gun, upon the oa tn of Mrs. Amelia
Mansfield, who charged Mrs. Roys with as
| sduit anu upon Cnliu, sally
| field. The case was returned for trial before
| Justice Tucker, at the Eighth Precinct station
Thursday night. The mplainarl testified that
| her daughter-a girl of ~ years-came from
school and exhibited hel back and arms, which
were much bruised, and stated that she had
| been whipped by her teacher with a ruler. She
| knew nothing more. Mrs. Baxter corrobora-
ted this statement. The little girl was intro
| duced and sworn. She exhibited her arm. The
| injury there was discoloration OF the skin, a
redness, indicating recent smack with some
| thing having fiat surface. She said she was
whipped tor whispering and for tickling a lit
| tie girl during momentary absence of the
teacher from the room. She was struck on the
hands, arm, and back. The little girl who was
| tickled testified mat the teacher went ont of
the room minute or two, and Sally Mans
| field put her arms around her and tickled her
(the wltness) under the arms until she fell
from the chair but did not fall on the floor.
| The teacher whipped her with a ruler. The
witness described the ruler as nearly like one
IN the station, q little over an inch and quar-
ter wide and over quarter inch thick.
DR.. AcKim testified that he had examined the
injuries to the little girl, and found on her arm
| dlscoloratiOn of the SKIN, exhibiting a few
| blood points that may turn dark in day or
yr-n rty nS hu SnA