New-York tribune., 1870-04-30

Yield him the floor but insist that not 10 be in
terrupted by these constant assertions against
aspersing our conduct, and Insulting every Wlles
we call IN the case II is ntGefshe m fa CITY and d insist that
hereafter the counsel shall be- held within some " - any
rules that ought to govern counsel upon INC ' '" my
Mr.. Graham-I make objections to this evidence. In
4s hours have discovered that tnis nIan
ming under private influences That Is PerIcc.iy Pm
II has ceased to be public prosecution man III mns
sachusets has contributed oo to sustain the nSy ef
of this urosecuon There il inexhaustbc supply vi
money to sustain prosecuon 1t comes rom private
Now submit 70 your Honor t ts nnc or spf two
tops-Nr Greeley, Mr. Johnson ana MI. SnIcIali It
opnearcd about tiis case since this trial commenced. ~
ppnnt t%ot they have no testimony hero now. and
ask that this argument that VIII alse on IN t nicoob
today with the testimony OF living wtnessess Jaey
will get other witnesses by Monday IN, A., n,s,-ot
PecorIer Iaekett--Ihc case rests win thc DIsulct
Atoney and I'm his discretion he Ii to produce testimony
hest calculated to advance the cause OF .e popu. ,h
Court has no right in my yew TO tell what course i.o
himself proper manner II is Inc Dnsness o .e ~
some well known rule or principle OF law think MI.
Graham-with respect to you-tlat you transcehu 1o"
Mr GrahamrI Object to the paper the ground that
II is nsu;ciely proved Mr.. Greeley has sworn tlat
ne ne saR saR mannrPt received from MI Mcfarland o
didn't read the manuscript, or compare ihe pupiaVW W
i'm The paper with the manuscript He distinctly fas 10
swear that what in that paper is print OF the mani
script and therefore they cant read H. Iey can Only
read what is in that paper by showing that IL print
of what Mr. Mcfarland placed in their hands as manu-
script. . .....,, o,,
dence TO entitle us To read It, We have shown that
Mcfarland came to Mr.. Greeley and stated what ne de
sired in respect to what had appeared previously IN e
paper that Mr. Greeley directed him to prepare what he
wished published; that he went away ana returned "tn
examined ii. and in the presence OF Mr. Mcfarland,
added five nes that manuscript then sent to tho
%ay and Sir Greeley says that according his best
judgment, This is the document. paper in the hand
Recorder Iackett-He said he did not know that was
in Mr.. MeFarland's writing .,.,. ,,. 30 ,ron.
away and brought back the manuscript himself and that
Of course gives the same authenticity as though was
I'm his handwriting The point il whether we are, under
such state of facts permitted 10 prove what Was ia the
paper. -, III, ,
Iect MAT the cOuusel stated among other very
assertions made by him, that Mr. Richardson published
in THE TRIBUNE a statement which no characterized as
a publication OF this mans cuckOldOm." desire to
read this statement OF Mr. Richardson's in evidence
Mr.. Graham-We know nothing about TINS statement
Judge Dayis-And yet the counsel, in his mbde OF try.
ing the case takes tho liberty of going to tins jury and
asserting that such document published In paper
Of wide circulation thus procaimng to the world that
Mr. Richardson had succeeded In getting away inns prs
oner's wife and debauching her The counsel ia con-
stantiy reterating this and now when undertake to
duciug the document ITSELF which lie, counsel
prove the deliberate statement made to the
Jury aud which must have been known to
have been false when made Are We to be
precluded from showing what Mt. Richardson dld, In
fact saw after they proclaimed to the world what
they have in the publication of that opening 1t was
claimed by the learned counsel who opened this
that the publication Of this statement of so harrow
ing character that il raised this man To state OF
frenzy beyond his control 1t was asserted IA basis
for the shallow prcteXt of insanity in this And yet,
when we seek to show that there nothing In that
assertion upon which any such charge could be pre
Gated are not at liberty To do it II it be claimed
that the conduct of Mr. Richardson in respect 10 this
woman of character such as they charge may we
not prove what he did and the statements that he made,
as basis of position that this pretext Of insanity
is simply an attempt 10 put cloak on Tor the
that ali these tOns are
open invests CATION While they assert that this man
was insane at the time Of the commission of the crime,
and that his insanity based on what Mr. Richardson
did and said in respect to his WIFE are We not at liberty
on the theory insist upon In this case to wit that his
insanity was feigned condition to up his crime
not at liberty TO show the statements he really
actedl We have the right when say that he fegned
this insanity 10 show these statements as basis OF our
claim just they claim the right TO show statements as
"a basis OF the claim that he was insane.
Recorder IIackett-What do You hold in yonr handi
Greeley TO have been made by Mr. Richardson and pub
Recorder Hackett-How do you bring it home to Mr..
Judge Davis-Iti is connected with him from the fact
and counsel have asserted in this court that it to
Mstarands kn9%ledge ana drove MN u madness ies ~
opened the case who has any auson TO This mat
stand every range OF facts Which can by any possibility
be introduced into the No opening was ever proved
In the first fully. Tie object OF opening Is
not only 10 let the jury know what facts nave 10 be
proved be responsive to the main charge, but sueh
other facts contngenty may become relevant by any
course the prosecution may pursue, either in their
original or IN their rebuttng case snInI An opening
tive Of facts, such as would come within the regular e
Of proof, and would not meet the additional eomPexons
OF The might be developed either by the proof
sustain it or by the proof to contradict it, Mr. spen-
Ger openeda number Of thing, which were emnently
to Introduce proof of them, but who ever
e s to Sr 60 dnf nS up On
strength of an opening which the jury knew perfectly
'afy TGe position Which the take now
occupy is entirely untenabe. This opening OF
duty We have to Seet every phase Of this case and in
the MAN, every important feature OF that opening has
performance OF his duty made reference TO facts not
publicly known and which It might become necessary
duction OF such evidence as this.
Recorder HaCkett-I shall exclude the evidence, and
therefore it will not DO necessary to argue the point
further.
Judge Davis-My suggestion was that where state
ment Is proved and produced and counsel have deber
aty, in opening case asserted that statement to be
OF the things that produced the condition Of mind in
which they claim that their client was that 1t is then to
be taken az an admission Court the statement did
to the prisoners knowledge. The counsel have no
right to make an assertion that such paper pub
ished without putting in power OF the other side
TO bring i'll the paper and identity IT, on that adsSion
Recorder Hackett-I think jares in this Court gencr
ally attach very little Importance TO what IL said III open
ing case The widest scope the utmost license. should
be given, think, where mans life is involved and
don't think counsel should be held by any statements
not offered as testimony. This evidence is excluded
Mr. Graham-I want TO say this Sir with reference to
the opening in this 1t conforms to the character Of
openings all great it's statements of facts. The
Of openings be looked at and it will he found
that no counsel ever opened case by simply reeiting
facts which, under circumstances he would have to
prove. Every opening s intended to state provisional
facts, and is meant to furnish the jury In advance with
answers contingent compile xions Of the For the
opening in this simply TO have confined itself
10 statement OF the defense Of insanity would
have been perfectly preposerous and would not have
redeemed the obligation OF counsel This opening In its
statements puIsues the correct mode OF openings In all
important The jury To be armed with the de-
fense which the prisoner means u rely under any
circumstances, and they also TO be armed by tho
suggestions Of the opening with such answers to evil
dence that may De introduced IL is in the power Of
the defense 10 furnish. l have fault " find with
Mr. Spencer's opening at all.
Judge Davis-I don't find fault with its statements Of
fact all find fault with is its almost nparaeled state
ments OF falsehoOd!
District Attorney Garvin stated that the necessary