The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1870-04-13
THE MCFARLAND TRIAL.
THE TRIBUNE FREE-LoTE MURDER
CASE CONTINUED.

spicy Letters from Tribune Correspondents
-Greelcy Going to SARATOGA TO Trip the
Light Fautnstic-Thc Women who Lured
Mrs. Mcfarland TO Huin-ChOicc Bits
from Lucia q. Cnlhoun's Correspondence
-IIusks nre such Dry Fnre-People with
Cores and Fruit Withm- Mrs. CaIhoun's
Dreams aud Observation-Disclosures Driv-
en- to Insanity.
The court room was thronged yesterday morn
ing at an carly hour by eager crowd. The ladies'
were out in force and they were representative
ladies, too. Every one had countcnance and air
Indicative Of opinions Of her own, and suggesting
that she would stand no nonsense. Judge Hackctt
was punctual to the minute, as usual, and so were
all the counsel, except Mr. Grnham. He was ten
minutes late, and was rewarded for his hardness
with round OF applause from the spectators.
Testimony Of Nicholas John Green.
Nicholas John Green, Boston lawyer. was the
first witness called, lie was examined by Mr..
Gerry. lie was retained on behalf OF Mrs. McFar-
land in the hdIeas corpus brought by Mcfarland
in Massachusetts, to recover his children. While
acting as Mrs. Netherlands counsel In that case, he
had an interview with Richardson, who came into
the ONCE Of The witness In Boston.
RICHARDSON FEES nRs. N'rARLASD's COUNSEL
o-what was said BY him in regard to that case? A.
Tie Court dat.rrupting,-B RchardsOn'
TIE couft-i. can't = allow that.
.,s nSs py 'e hat w sss ' S
RsnSrd;on called upon him and 81 STATED Ne tsst n9
Sdsd Sm T 70 20. P Sc az Of ao
that he deemed 4 important to secure Po;I,es nhn
hose CONNECTED Win ne Ir,s SGs we T1pSsS
witness a retaining fee. lis own check draft.
The Court-1he question as 10 what richardson said
OLD you see Richardson subsequent to ths' A
Did You receive from him any Instructions
conducting the case2
The prosecution objected to the question. and the
Court indicated intention TO sustain the oejec-
Mr. Graham said that, with all respect to his
Honor, lie thought they lad enough out now to show
that tits evidence was PROPER and important, and
that
RICHARDSON WAS TINS WHOLE CASE.
1t too lata to try TO keep him out OF H. He
was ondeavoring To unyokc this woman, and 70
ALLEVIATE Ler permanently rom her husband. The
intercepted letter ct Richardson. which was read TO
TIE lury on Friday, and TIE evidence OF Mr. Nones,
| given on Monday. concuslycly showed this In his
letter, Richardson declared that he would not Jet
the grass grow under his cet' in accomplishing his
| purpose; and lie 'ol Mr. Noncs during the pend.
ency Of that hdbtds cc'1us suit, that Mrs. Nc
In that suit Mcfarland was in tact fighting the
temptations which Richardson had thrown around
his WIFE Richardson was determined, and declared
that
SUE SHOULD NEVER co BACK TO nER HUSBAND;
and one Of the chief elements in his plot the
keeping OF the prisoners children from their father.
II those children had gone back, tue chances are
coded to this woman some particle Of feeling aud
human nature. She was vibrating between her love
for that man and her children. Her lasting seDara
| ton from ler husband could not be accomplished
unless Richardson could defeat McFarland's efforts
to regain his children. And 80 he put his purse at
her disposal and supplied the means to contest the
suit; and Mr. Graham would submit that it was
proper for them to show that McFlrland's belief
even his Authorizations on ills point, affected his
mind aud went TO the essence Of the defence.
& Of 40 rS SG'R MAS |SSfa p
IA Il
charms; aud Ne determination TO marry her, was al
time a witness and had Insi been examined but the
S Mr. dsc ad tc Ky ee % NE
nication on Mctarlards mind as very decided. But
cndsd; shall not perm myself Tor moment Do lSso
IN the nrst degree, as charged m the Indictment
MI. RICHARDSON Is not on TRIAL
here in any degree whatever Il is competent to chow
OF tnis character II Il can also he shown
Meier and whc hfr such easements wers tue or not
Firianf wa. impressed VITA a belief that riey we're
tue The statement that was made by richardson 10
| Sic WIS divorced Vas nmcd.ateiy communicated to
Mel arland and The result ON his mind described
TERRIBLE.
He Il described bv the witness having acted like
madmau after hearing that statement. That circum
stance certainly made that question comrecnt and n
troduce was communicated to Mcfarland, it's oompe.
tent but nyou cannot show that. is certainly not
Mr.. Graham-we cannot show that this statement
was communicated TO Mcfarland 90 We must lOse tue
bcnent oft Please note our execution.
got in his speech, which WAS telling one, aud
perhaps answered his purpose as wei as tue test
Q.yFrom the commencement TO the termination Of
THIS tr al did you Lave frequent inlerNiews with Me
farland2 AEYcs err think conyersed with HIM
S-Miil yoa Ge'si6s hi: srneaTanes? AIMs ar;
great impression upo1 me he was to rensTsaeIG dc
aboui his eyes. peculiar ierVor IN has expression IKE
man whose
wuosE NERVOUS SYSTEM WAS HIGHLY STRUNG,
50 much so that thou ut he should not be IN court
tam? Any Judgment was Il he was not then, he
judge DAVIS dnterrupting)-I object to the witness
answering that question
TO WHAT A LAYNAS CAN AND CANNOT TESTIFY.
Mr. Graham insisted that the witness should he
Permitted TO finish his wer, and then II the court
so decided II could be excluded. He admitted tnat
as an expert the witness had no right to give an
| opinion on insanity; but tho witness used the word
Insane In the sense that q ayman may use the
| word irrational; and it was competent for him to
| say whether the prisoner behaved nationally or
rrationay. Al any rate, the witness should not be
| interrupted in the midst OF His answer when it WAS
| apparent he about to use word not palatable
| 10 the prosecution.
JUDGE pAvIs's PROTESTS.
Jrdre Dayis-wc are at liberty, when II L clearly
manifest that the witness Is ABOUT 10 state somelnns
o6S S% a't inc witness was syyen5y sSoa' sye az
6eeo9e ms is Clearly In Violation OF Tic rue tiSt
ilymen or non.experis. are not, at liberty to give
| The Court-Thc witness may answer the question.
Witness-I going 10 say that would not be will.
Ing 20 state that he irrational nut that he appear.
| ed u be tho border line OF insanity lie had u
wild, nervous look aud seemed as though he WAS On
the point OF breaking IN ana nteruptug the proceed
| ingS IN the case.
| Q-How long did that appearance last? Ale was
| always IN that condition every time saw hlu, which
at Intervals during period of SIX or seven months
Gross Aauiucd by Nit, Davis " hat wac the result II
| that cascY Al believe Mcfarland took oae Lille
| COY and
| HIS WIFE KEPT THE OTHER.
o-Tnere wash agreement to that effect, was there
Mr.. GrAham-I object to that. Let them produce the
The Court sustained the objection,
ANOTHER OF ms. RFARLASD's LAWYERS.
| Edward X. Philips was next called, and examined by
Mr.. Gerry. He lived IN Boston aud was the Attorney
OF record for Mrs Mcfarland In the hGbeds corpus case
He corrobOTnted the testimony OF Mr. Green As 10 Me
Farands wid excited and irrational behavior during
those procec llngs in Boston. MCFARLAND insisted OF
repeatedly tcnlg him the story OF his wrong although
he warned him do 50, ns he twitness) was th'
attorney OF Mrs Mcfarland. The Interviews with a.,
| agony he went; he behaved ike mndman the con
burden OF his conversation was that Richardson
| had taken away his children. HIS last conversation
with Mcfarland in or about August, 1861 just ate
lie had got leave nom the supreme Court IN Boston lt
| Cross.cxamined by Mr.. Davls-Q.-You were contest
ing this behalf OF Mrs. Mcfarland A-Nes
sir, =.
Q.-And claiming that she was the proper custodian