The New York herald., 1870-04-13

pending from April TO November; saw
his appearance In some respects was strange
10 me; he seemed to me Wholly apsorDeu
0dd look ia his eyes; he seemed to me exceedingly
unstrung and nervous; would not say as 10 his
mental condition thai he was Insane ,, ,,.,o
Judge Davis interrupted and SAID tnas the opinion
OF the witness was not admissible After some little
skirmshing witness proceeded and SAID ne should
near the border line between sanity and In
sanity. Every time saw him his appearance
received his child, on the termination OF the suit.
Ine witness then proceeded TO testify to the prl
soner's appearance which he described as strange.
Q. DO you remember meeting Richardson SubSe-
quent to thata A. did on several occasions.
q. Did you receive any Instructions In regard TO
ne op S e @ S
had perfect right 70 show that Richardson was at
the bottom OF the entire affair There was the inter-
the woman from her husband.
The Court SAID that 1t would not be admissible
unless it was proved that the conversation was re-
An argument here arose as to the admssability OF
evidence gonG to show what Richardson said 70 Mr..
defence submitted that inasmuch as Richardson had
participated IN the proceedings they had right to
ntI0once evidence concerning nim The intercepted
woman from ner husband. Richardson was In fact
carrying out his determination which he distinctly
grow under his feet. From Mr. Nones they had the
fact that this man mad said to him that this woman
was positively sworn to By Mr.. Nones; that Richard
son. IN the month or June 1867; that Mrs. Mcfarland
should never again live with her husband; Richard
son seemed to be one OF the principal parties In the
habeas corpus proceedings: McFarlana was not
nghting his wife; be was fighting The temptations
which Richardson threw around her; his wiIe was
without means Of supporting herself and unable to
carry ON any legal proceedings, and unless she
could keep The children with her there were
potent reasons why she should return to her
husband; II Richardson had been unable to
retain the children she would have gone back
from rer husband perfectly certain. ana in order
TO render 1t perfectly sure that she would remain
away when she was away 1t was necessary TO keep
keep the children his plans would have been stop.
ped. His tcounsel's, associate proposed to snow
that this frenz,ed father was combating Richard
son In order to get back his children kept away
from him BY Richardson's means. The intercepted
letter should no: se lost sight o. especially when II
marriage between Mrs. Mcfarland and the prisoner
at the bar. The deience has a right to
ssS ana and %aen SATISFY Mr. m Ss % s srns
The part OF The defence was to show all McFar
lands delnsions at this period; Mcfarland had no
stand between nm and his own chldren9 II the
prosecution could show that through immortality or
other McFarand HAD forfeited his natural pa
terna right he couDselj challenged them to 90 into
such evidence. Supposing the woman was willing
TO remain away, had not Mcfarland right to re-
claim his chIdrcnf The defence had right to show
that but for tho interference OF Richardson this wo
man, deprived OF the children, would have been In
cumstances they had right to show Richardson's
participation IN the proceedings.
The Court observed that in reference to the coun-
seps remarks when the question was previously
called to as to the conversation between MI.
Nones and Mr.. Richardson an objection was
nave been overaed out for the of the de
fence that the subject OF that conversation was i'm
Grafton must not be lost sight OF that the trial now
before the court was whether the prisoner at the bar
was guilty OF murder In the first degree: Richard-
MO n mt VI W. m Ant 40
fence to show The substance Of any con-
versation between Mr.. Richardson and others,
fne statement made by Richardson that Ire was
bound to have MRS. Mcfarland, and that in conse-
quence OF that statement McTarland's mind was
frenzied was admissible as evidence provided that
it had been previously communicated to Mcfarland
himself; otherwise such testimony could not be ad-
mitted.
Counsel stated that 1t could not be shown that the
conversation had been repeated to FIR. Mcfarland
and the question was accordingly overruled.
which Mr.. Mcfarland was to take Percy aud Mrs.
McFarland was to nave the other Child both parents
times as set forth In the decree.
Testimony of e. X. Philips.
Edward K. Phillips examined by Mr.. Gerry-Am o
member Of the Boston bar ten years; was engaged
as counsel for Mrs. Mcfarland; saw Mcfarland in
court the tune the suit was IN progress; saw nim
him was when the case was before Judge BigelOw;
noticed his manner as being nervous and excited;
gagged as counsel for the other si0e he insisted on
telling me his sad story and listened; he said Mr..
Richardson had taken his wife away and wanted to
take his chhdien; the interview was very painful
one to me; mir. Mcfarland seemed completely over
come; he was decidedly as irrational as man could
be; IN all my conversations with him the story
about hrs wiie ana children formed the burden; his
whole demeanor at these times was thoroughly IRA
tiona1.
Cross-examined by Judge Davis-Did you ut any
time suggest to the court on account Of McFarand's
rraonality that he was unfit to be the custodian OF
and attended only TO the details OF the case.
Judge Davis-Did you ever mention 1t to the senior
counsel. Wiiness-i dida
Testimony of DIR. John A. Ward.
DR.. John A. Ward examined Have been a
physician for sixteen years; know Mcfarland very
well, and knew MS wife very well; saw McFar.
land the night before the shooting; he came to my
Office and renamed there about fifteen minutes;
walked down Filth avenue with him; he came into
my oe In In great M state Of hssS ason Of
Richardson; | must have my boy, must have my
boy;' told him lnever saw him in such condi-
feel like killing myselt;' talked and reasoned with
him, and gave him morphine powder to take
every hour. His hand was shaking and his pulse
was running 120; / formed the Impression that
McFarand's mind was diseased; that he was IRA.
tlona; l never had occasion to prescribe for
TO 0f u BE- very w fond @ his wife; newer
knew of any difilculty between them up
with Mrs. Mcfarland at a reception In the house OF
Mr. Samuel Sinclair; was present; Dlr Mcfarland
was not; Mcfarland came to my office In April,
1857 and told me III state OF great excitement and
to my great surprise that his wife had left him; his
pulse was running ITO, and he told me ne had not
slept Tor two three weeks he said he had dreams
visions at night about his wife and cnlldren and
that he must have his children back or he would die
the symptoms shown by Mcfarland denoted cere-
bral disturbances; he said he was unable to sleep;
that ON going to his room he threw himself on his
bed, but failed to get any rest; have walked with
I'm n q n
calm him; he talked Of committing suicide; in
one OF his dreams ne said he dreamt having Richard.
son by the throat
Cross-exanlned by ex-Judge Davls-Q. Are you q
relative of Mr.. Mcfarland? A. No, sir, except by
marriage; his brother and my brother married two
sisters; my wlle Is not related to the family; first
formed the acquaintance with the family In 1862;
they then lived at the corner Of VarIck and Laight
streets; called in there professionally attend
TO the boy Percy; that was in the winter time; the
family was boarding; they next lived at Croton;
am unable TO locate them between 1852 and 1865;
prior 70 1865 ] do not think was called as ply
sician, from 1862 to 1865; / was not accus-
toned to visit Jhe family except as q ply
Blcan; / prescribed OF the oflice In his
case; think they went to Croton in the fall OF 1884
and they lived there in 1888: saw them In the sum-
mer Of that year; Mr.. Sinclair spent his summers