New-York tribune., 1870-04-29

o. VIII you undertake TO say that he was slhcero' a.
he sa,d na u Hon IN believe he meant il, A. Yes Sir
Q. Have you argued that into Mrs. Mcfariahu' a. N''
Did you never have any at with her ai'er
final "a separationi A. No, sir a.. ooree-
ment with his wifef A. am not a lawyer; 90 no.
know; 1 think q man can agree to separate HUN "''
o. Do Won suppose father and mother with children
can separate the sayi A. think father ana no.nn,
should put up with almost everything 0oioi' '"''
o. But what want to know Of you is this: DO yon
think that what You witnessed that night amounted 10
lasting SEPARATION A That is what understood ,or
hSTSs Mf 6m A Ys. s he said it would not
only affect himself her and the children; .,..
and wfe ae should submit to almost before they
separated A. Yes Sir that i my % Judgment s4 wben Won saw
MrMc Tarland did you give him ctteri Is this let
gave him! Ye Sir gave 9m n as ssleT sny por
tIo OF that letteri a. Do you want me to say that
would write letter like that ln nGyl tSt Won wouS not
@ Do you want 70 unsay anythngi A. No, Sir
The following Is the letter: ,,o 1857
HonsP cH,.x-sr; Mr. Daniel Mcfarland Of thi, city Ser an
os xo@y IA T1 nan sD,Tsa sTd ss
q Nov, this was some weeks otter this Sunday
Now, o1sisr" Sir we win get this interview in March
1865 when you took him to task for being t to ea
him DO you really believe 1t wrong in father when
thinks that his wife deserted MN Witnout cuoo, LOO
surrendered herself to her paramor to dsconntenanoe
a visit to her cildf A did not cohSider nil p"i"'
O. The father was the Judge, then. supposlng tho
father should believe that she had made an hnS Il
surrender OF herself to her paramour, DO you thhx ~
unnatural in him to discounenanco her visiting the
emu Now M sir do Won know that no then did not think
that there was mroprety between Richardson ana ths
womani A do not remember as " 80 hto di''o a'
G. You have spoken about his inquiry for Richardson
and Mrs Mcfarland how many umeS nns US nonircd Of
me perhaps three or times; he first inquired OF MN
after the previous shooting; should think was Withn
| two or three weeks; cannot remember tne nch 4
should think year; 1t may nave peeh sa as,h %;
@ When the last occasion IN reference 10 the etng ah m
November, 1869 A; should thihk IL was 0o"''''e
| before that /; month or two .,.. p,ohordson ,ros
O. VIII you undertake to say now that Kchardson w9
in vour office on the morning OF the shooting when Mr.
| Mcfarland came inf A. cannot be POSITIVE aoou'
O. The evidence shows that It took place in September
now may you be two months out of the way a.
should think it was later than September iShoud 'A
O. Wv viii Hi yon undertake to say positively that + was
within monlh Of that datei A. cannot remeinoeri
| did not charge my mind WITH IT, ,..,,...
@ Now, when did you first see tins intercepted ettfr
1861 A. 1t was within day or two after 1t was re-
ceNed. ,,.,,,.. .oror, M
Richardson after 1t was receiyodi A. Ies, sir; Cir
pa you see nmythGIs wToIE fo"sb bn letter IT, A. les
Q. Do you call it simply fooliShf A. SAID mprudehs
o. Do yon think any such foolish denotes the
nuty OF that letteri a. should think 1t foosh that
O. Don't YOU think that the letter was perfectly IN
famous under the crcumstancesl A. No, not under the
o. Then You think that a man who subscrses himself
who addresses lady as wife withh three weeks aitor
there has been any formal divorce, does not write
very wrong letterl A. 1t is not letter that would
@ Doyou mean to say that 1t was not 2 very wrong
letter for any one to wrtei A. should think 1t was
| very imprudent letter and very foolish. -
O. Is that all that you have to say about Ill a. les'
|
that mani A. should think it would tend to make him
| frenz!ed.
ing frenzied such letcrl A There is difference
between frenzy and craziness; nave very frequently
O. What do you call iti A. A man who isvery angry
q. And what Is your idea of crazncssi A. A man Is
g Now how after you saw that interceped letter
did you SEQ Richardsoni A. l do not remember how
@ Were You there the DAY the nteroeptod letter was
put into McFarlaIds hands A. No SIR my recollection m @
taken about the day
Fafand MSS' sad 3D. If chardson married lis Wife he would
shoot hint A. He said II they were married to each
O. Now were they married, to your knowledge, before
| the 25th OF November lasti A. No, Sir.
@ Ten the event had not happened on the day Of the
q But he feaiEed yop say that If they married and
they would never live together again no said, if they
ever were plarrie9 :hey lever should live together.
4 u.
son and this woman go your house and 0nd asylum
therei A. was gone away and when returned IN tho
sa r un Monday mSrnng and
she went to Boston, my recollection Is that Mr Richard
O. Did Richardson sleep in your house at any time be-
tween the 2t Of February and the night of this shoot
| 9. Did Mrs. McFarlandi A. Yes Sir think she was
@ When did you first hear of the intention of these
two to get married. A. My recollection s that the first
Mr. Richardson and she at our house.
@ Dd you suggest any improperly in thati A. Yes,
Sr, but NOT at that time 1t was very after that
suggested TO her that her friends thought strange she
should engage herself after their separation
said that they having separated she thought she had
Q. Did she say when they had made the engagement
O. Now,Mr Sinclair did you ever endeavor to dssuade
Richardson and Mrs Mcfarland from carrying out this
sr Ss A. No. S never said anything to them a'
O Did you know on that Thursday morning that It was
the intention to get divorce in another state and get
married. did you know they meant to carry out that
Mr.. Richardson told that If she free ho
@ What did he intend to do to make her free, A.
Q DID you never talk to Mr.. Mcfarland about that;
did you ever represent that to hint A. do not reco
@ Isl true that you discouraged Mr. Mcfarland
that they were engaged. and all they wanted was to
O. Did it ever occur to you that consideration
the children ought to draw them together and did
A. never had but very lltle conversation with her,
O. Was there anything said in tho separation about
chfldreni A.. think there something said about
them that night.
O. Do to TO the jury that the father and
mother separated, and would make arrangement
about the children aferwardi A. don't think there
was any arrangement that night
g Did not MI. Mcfarland, when he alluded to the
children, urge that as reason why TREY should remain
togetherf A. Yes, Sir.
Q,Now Sir, did you suppose that he meant anything
else than cohabitaon OF himself and wife until you heard
him state what he stated, that ne resigned to it II
that was her deterninationf A. supposed that they
were making the final separation.