New-York tribune., 1870-04-28

NUM- SIySx vas ,p such condition that 1t was capable OF
reasoning and determining whether nne s Of determining
whether an act is right wrong and s pe Insane anu m
%an Tno Is nfS Evidences Of insanity should
tanly think him sane; falled 70
tont ~ witch shows the power Of the will over the
@. Have you 1t with you Dr. Hammond here pro, t
dneed the instrument, and proceeded 10 iusta" its
method working It Vas TO De heG IN Ig as TO- Tmn
across piece Of paper, and II person held the lnstu
men perfectly steady the psnttontt msred T%na ha
| powcr of the will over the muscles.l M,
That indicates one or two rngs docs es tbe INABILITY
! OF the muscles to obey the wili a. Yes, SIR
O. Well in ordinary practice where the object s 10 as
certain the condition. you generally have no roube-the
patient always desires to obey youf A. No. SIR. rd
o. An ordinary person seeks 10 obey your WILL anu
therefore YOU think you have arrived at an approximate
accuracyi A. Yes, Sir. ,.,-- -, .o.o,. &.
made with view determine whether the Will mus i1st
the power over the muscles the patient has in ms
down C1neaning the penciD 4; OF course ,.,.O,ro
O. when the viii is not to hold it there, then II Is OF no
q when did You use this instrument A. On the 2oth
O. OF course the person understands the character OF
| the defense; think you witnessi A. he Knew
hat tSo1 but he tSS dd biS hO' fSw Wanted him to get that
pencil at fixed point and not to look at II think a my
would be TO his utmost interest to keep that pencil at
that point endeavored to do that with MN d th nv M
tell him after he got through what it was or Wha' INC re
3. How many men out of any given numbers say 20
make perfectly straight inei A. do not believe there
is a person within my eyesight who coud not uo H.
Mr.. Davis-I want to call them up 10 Try
TESTIMONY OF HORACE GREELEY.
The appearance of Mr. Greeley was the signal Tor an
increased amount Of attention and cessation OF Whis
pering Mr. Greeley examined by the Distrct-At
| torney.
O. You reside in the City Of York; A. My home is
| in Chappaqua; do business here.
O. How long have you been engaged in New-forkCltyf
| A. For about 20 years -, ~,
| O. How long have you known him A. think first
him in the Winter of 1862 and 1863, but 1t might nave
O. Did You see him and have conversation with him
Mr. GrahaIn--we object In that rebutting want to
| know what they propose showing. ..o.,o
that he had with Mr. Greeley during the Winter OF 1861
after this separation. We assume he was sane Inc law
sane Their defense proceeds the idea OF insanity:
We propose now TO show conversations when 0ccurreu
at various this separation took place between
the husband wife, with various persons in order to
Mr.. Graham-Yor Honor is not to be aught in any
Recorder Hackett-I don't propose to be:
conversation in reference to which they propose & 10
They can 60 into nothing that constitutes part OF their
original case and on that point we mean TO meet men ZEN
with strong authorities Now the CSur s 81 sh4u ns con can
versaton That is prOperin advance The conversation
ton owe it to the Court to tell the Court fairly what
kind OF conversation this was in reference to what IL
DSwfS %as to s%efS Sey can ses in @ ay wha
ever they please, and If We are, not fortunate
remains in the case Now, we have the highest aniho
ties that has always been recognized in this
State since it occurred and with which the learned Clerk
of the Court perfectly familiar because II mas been an
tried before Judge Gridey at Utica. If the prosecution
want to show malice originally, that is part Of their
nvifri Q1 and SIX
to require the DistrictAttorney TO diyulge the
dS these S get in the very
which the law will prevent them from getting IN; and
1ns TO nSs the the eG Of se
sations We win then meet the issue, and am satisfied
trial the rule strictly applied that the prosecution
though they lost most important witness and most
important item of testimony, could not Introduce such
evidence . =, .,, .
the occasion you name thlnk the question gwen
by Judge Davis Is entirely eompSiep for ths r@SSn:
what the scope of this defense. If determined
by various inquiries addFeSsed by you on e Td
cate that the killing was not by your eilent IN HE
TRIBUNE Ofcethat is the defense would lead us to be-
eve that this died from the ineciency OF his sur
geons that his mind had been exercised by various
matters that t taupcrinduced death Therefore the pros
ecuton rest their case Now your defense you have
undertaken o show the life OF the prisoner from his brth
with degree of Ininuteness which have never known
myself You have shown his character from the year
1850 with most uneIring fidelity You have presented
killing. You have shown his mental condition, or sought
to show by variety Of witnesses, and IL seems to be
entirely right that the prosecution should he permitted
to show at this time the part of this prisoner
which entirely antagonstc to your theory that this
MI GTaIam-I am prepared to show the highest legal
authority when the question comes up. MY motion now
Is simply require the DstrictAttOrney To state the
character Of this conversation. =.
Recorder Hacket-1hat is immateral. These conver-
satons that he had with Mr. Greeley upon any subject
may be given IN evidence in order that the jury shall
The Jury ought to Judge from all the
Mr.. Graham-we don't object if your Honor please, to
condition, but the quest is this Must they not state
TO think not Mr. Graham Please
O. state whether you had q conversation with him,
About fortnight think, after had first heard OF the
he called upon at the American Institute rooms In the
Cooper Building where at work. and said 81 sup
the other side; | answered, no. SIR ] have heard
about it, but nothing from what you call the
statement Of the easel" Certainly certainly" said
| /, "say ON" so he commenced, and said he had no
that he there under misrepresentation very
spending part of her time in Richardson's room; that
he demonstrated with her about IT, and she said it should
met her. or saw her coming from Richardson's room and
they had some words about 1t; and then he didn't con-
she left his house, and Very soon he was called sort Of
family cOuncia triake-befOre her father and other
Of al HS1s Dc mt 2 tha he
specified a1ythi9g-b9t he was accused Of great many
him that she should be his wife go with him any
mOre that that separation; he do mt think
there has been any criminal intercourse between her and
him, but" he says after this ral-Or whatever 1t was
after what has taken place. she can never more be
wife of mine can never more recognize her or have
| ANYTHING to do with her my wife"
That is the purport OF my conversation; that is the
| first time
O. The second time A. The second call was after
further trOubles-after the shooting he called and
remember much that he said then spoke harsh
to him. think he called for something, and did MT make
known his errand, but went away; the third
time he called 1t was year later then he called
to complain Of the publication Of something