The New York herald., 1870-04-28

sir, go on; he commenced aud said he na no trou.
bes with his family TIL Richardson came 20 tie
house, and that he came there under some nlisre-
presentations: that very soon after he was informed
thar his wife was In the habit OF spending her
time In Richardson's room: thar he demonstrated
with her. and she said II would STOP but that IT did
not stop; afterwards think he SAID that he met
her or saw her come from Rlchardson's room;
he lid not consider the matter serious or
requiring separation, but that she eit
TO a sort or family counci--a tria, ike--bef0re her
father and others and then h. found he was accused
OF all manner OF things by his Wife, ana that ina Nv
she closed the matter by n0lifying hun that she
Should never be his W fe or 30 with him any more;
that this waS separation; he SAIL, IL don't think
that there mas been any criminal inter curse between
tnem;' but that after this trial, or whatever II was
''she can never more be wife OF mine; never more
can recognize or have yhing more to 10 with her
my wife," this IL the purp0r OF the conversation;
that was the frsttme he called.
2. what occurred al the second yisitY A. He
spoke about further trOubl -; about the shooting:
don't remember what he said; think spoke harshy
to him; think he called for something and then
he went away; The thrd tim ne called IL was in the
Tribune office; then H. called to com ain OF publ
cation IN the Tribune a. the time of the shoo Ing;
Publication which lie thought was prejudicial or un-
just 10 him: he said the ac ount OF the affair the
Tribune was unjust TO him and Unfair: told him he
should have u Iar hearing II h. would make our his
stateIApn; a. he understood the facts and that
would PRINT them accOriingly lie did make OUT his
statement, aud printed ID for him as he made
II in the Tribune; Inese were the only interviews
that had with hin from that time till this.
Paner handed 10 witness.
u IL tnui uie paper tia' contains ina Staiementf
Counsel for the defence-Dd he bring the paner
contain ny this statement when lie said was preu-
dcial TO himY A. think lie brought IL before me-
and said. This is unjust and unfair to me-"
Counsel for the defence-We VIII have no reference
made 20 the matter: let tie paper speak for itself.
Another paper shown 10 witness
q. l. thai The puOcliion yCu re.er toY A. Yes
th,nk Ihat Is the paper he made out and gave me 10
publish.
q. Did he make it out ia Your presence? A. lie
went out OF the room TO write 1t.
q. And h. brought IL back to your A. Yes;
think he brought 1t back 10 me-
q. Did you order IT. insertioui A. l did.
9. Is M mat @ III III a, Yes , ,hnt Is e the story
II so, state It. Objected toy.
Counsel for the defence again rose and said this
was not q case in rebuilal. Ii the other shooting
was brought In they must try IL as Of ITSELF and
that when by lapse Of lime proof could not be Oh
taine1 The purpose Of tins question was 10 slip in
case. II was an effort TO show that Mr.. McFar-
land had been IN the wrong three years
smSs TO an% 40 was ae not the wi0sse. a
awayf They dill no. dare to try this while 1t was
fresh for II Richardson had dare to appear In court
room against HIM he would never have got or
alive this was an enors to prove malice. II express
malice was a par OF the case N the prosecution
they were bound introduce It before they esed.
Counsel referred at geat leng to McLeods
case and several English He had suspected the
prosecution, but he had not wished to suspect them.
now that
Counsel contenaed at great length that the prose
cutlon We're bound to exhaust their case before they
u |
wou d be one of the most knavlsh things ever
attempted. THAT was The design from the He
coud not conceive anything more outrageousy dis
graceful or anything more atroclous than such On
attempt. The had no rgat 10 rest and then pre-
pare q case Counsel submitted that any Ior.
,ner mer proceeding coalG % not ,5osg now he gone
question at issue and nothing else. They attempted
TO introduce matter that, owing TO the lapse OF
not be disproeed. The az empt wa; 20 Prejudice the
jury. though that could never be done But whether
4 would or would not It was his duty to KEEP Il out
conversation tat McFar and referred TO collision
that took place between him and Richariso three
years ago II they did not take the ground that
Mcfarland was the aggressOr then 1t did not serve
the purpose Of the prosecution. He counseD did
was entitled to limit 1t. He characterized
the attempt as a disguised effort 10 do that
which should have oeen done before the prosecution
upon to act judically and with humanity on this
question. II Mr.. Mcfarland committed crime
crimes Because il was well known that ii Richard
son was brouyht into any court room where McFar-
land was implicated In an indictment, Richardson:
owing to the public feeling on the subject, would
never have left the court room alive. Now the prose
| cuuOn wanted to revive aud resuscitate matter
part Of the defence The witnesses were al dlssi-
pated and scattered The question was whether
under the pretence of the sanity of Mcfarland they
| could put iim on trial for that which they would
twist into crimnality ON his part, when they knew
1t wonld be imp ssble for him 10 establish his de-
| fence against thai charge.
The Court said that not the present case.
Counsel submitted that the prosecution wanted to
ton coud not T. res teir case and shen show maice
Tney wanted to show that the circumstances OF the
killing were characterized by malice. In this case
the prosecution selected their own road, ana relied
| upon the circumstances as exhiDitoiy Of malice.
Counsel cited the OF McCloud, ana relied upon
the decision given therein that the prosecution could
not enlarge upon the case when they came 10 re-
| buttal
| District Attorney Garvn said that when he opene,l
l no IN an n n e. n m
was enough for the prosecution TO show that man
| went into a building where another man came every
day for his correspondence without a word to a
human being the man placed himself behind gas
partition commanding full view, and waited fifteen
minutes with pistol in his pocket When the other
turned and then fired ana discharged
the fatal shot II that was not q
qualifying fact or circumstance. he would Ike
| to know what murder was. There he rested
his and II there any TACT In the trial The
part of the de ence or on the part Of the prosecut on
which went to exOnerate he defendant from all
sponsbity for a crime that was to b. considered by
| deny the killing. The whole course OF the examina
ton showed that that fact was admitted. 1t was
conceded that the defendant was the man who fired
the pistol and sent Richardson 10 his grave AMI the
defence insisted that he was not responsible because
he was insane when the transaction took place. He
tthe Disrict Attorney had not hitherto objected to
any evidence that would throw light upon the case
He had sat there for ten long DAYS during the po-
| cause he was p Osecuting man he was bound 10
prosecute the Presenting officer Of the county.
The counsel for the defence would have been under
the same obligation II the people had been fortunate
enough, when he ran for Oice, to have Sc ured
| his services. And it would have Deen q
| blessing, because no better one could lie obtained.
! But the people saw ht 10 reject him. Counsel for
| the defence had himself prosecuted cases IN this
county from time immemoria as private counsel,
and yet he talked as If it were sin to prosecute
man for killing fellow man. In the case OF
| Rogers where he was in the last gasp and was
| dying in agony, last resort his adversary
| appeared and argued the case alOpe for mur-
| der Was there anything wrong In thatY He
had right to do IT, ana he reversed the judgment oil
| the Supreme Court and the man went to his deain
| on the argument. The counsel also prosecuted in
the Fries cnse and also in the University rape case.
| There was nothing wrong In 1t. He (the District
| Attorney referred 70 the matter to show thai the
| counsel for the defence had stood In the same po-
| sltIOn in which he now stood. The defence adj
| med that the prisoner had done the killing and
I cOntended he was not responsible. The District
| Attorney earnestly submitted that the prosecution
| had right 10 answer the proof put forward by the
| defence
| ARGUMENT OF THE PROSECUTION.
| Judge Garvn contended that they had right 10
bring ANYTHING forward TO show the state of the pris
oner's mind at the time of the shooting. There Is