The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-24
THE PUTNAM TRAGEDY.
The Trial Of Foster Drawing
to q Close.
Epeeehe, Of counsel-Powerful Address Of the
District Attorney-Mrs Foster
on the Stand.

As the trial in the Putnam homicide case Is near
ing conclusion the interest Of the public seems TO
increase. The court was yesterday more crowded
than usual, and there were q larger number or
ladies in the reserved seats than on any previous
day. On these seats were Mrs. Foster and her three
children, one Of whom was a boy with fine bright
intelligent face. He appeared to be about seven
years OF age, and looked around the court
with On innocent simplicity that provoked
feeling Of sadness among the spectators. Mrs.
Foster Is evidently lady OF more refinement Of
manner than might have been anticipated; she was
accompanied by her sister, and the whole party
were very respectfully and neatly attred.
The Court rose at four O'Clock, and when it assem-
bles again this morning 1t VIII be to hear the close
OF District Attorney Garvin's speech and the charge
OF the Judge to the jury. The verdict Is expected to
be given about noon to-day.
1t had been expected, In accordance with the
understanding when the Court rose on Monday,
that both counsel for the defence would briefly ad-
dress the jury when the Court opened yesterday
morning. This, however, they did not do. They
proceeded al to call their witnesses. The first
was Mrs. Foster, the wife Of the prisoner, but her
testimony was objected to, and 1t was ruled out.
The following persons were called as witnesses to
Characteristic. Christopher Keys who had known
the prisoner as O Mason and knew that he had been
an inspector Of sewers under the COrporatIOn had
always considered him O man OF good character.
John McGiynn, brother OF the Rev. Dr.. McGlynp, Of
st. Stephens church, testified to good character
and Edward ]. Salmons believed Foster to be
pcaCeaDc, quiet man.
The next witness He'd gave medical testimony.
This was Dr.. Nathaniel Raborg, the police surgeon
OF the Twenty-third precinct. This gentleman had
examined Mr.. Putnam on the night of the assault.
DID not consider him fatally injured. In his opinion
deceased might naye recovered If he had been
properly treated. The depressed line on the skull
being left unattended until the following day rem.
dered the Inflammation more dangerous
The testimony OF three other persons to charac-
Ter was taken ana the evidence for the defence was
closed.
the prosecution recalled Dr. Lefrerts. who testified
that the fracture on the skull was broken into twelve
pieces. The pieces were produced by witness ana
handed to District Attorney GarvM.
After short delay in the calling or few wit.
nesses by the defence who did not answer, the
for the defence rested.
0ner. He addressed himself mainly to the law OF
the case. The law in England, as in this country,
ceeded to argue at considerable length thai there
was not made, either in the case Itself or by the
case. He commented upon the absence Of motive,
anu also upon The nonslaying character OF the in
Mr.. Bartlett followed Judge Stuart, and after re-
1erring TO the assignment OF himself associate
of 70 me 81 me ana after
the day after this crime had been committed, he
PROCEEDED 70 argue that the fatal blow was given
but that there were not IN II the clements OF intent.
Mr. Bartlett read at considerable length number of
authorities from the books before him as to
the degree OF guilt the prisoner could be found
prime, but the courts had held that
delheratlon possessed by the person committing the
crime. The Court Of Appeals have held that there
must be denoeration to constitute It a capital
offence. The learned District Attorney had a habit
Of advising hs ne Jury to 5e grave n giving ps.r YER
DuVal Sald aDOutuct1ug and closing door
after Foster mad left the inside of the car, was it
s R5'cSG eaes it ra ISe spras Sq cars o
wives. Of The jurors to allow their daugl-
tiers to go alone to the 'front.' OF the car, on the
not accompany their daughters theinseIvesq lie did
no. wish to maze any 1nchartable remark, put II
they took tins fact IN connection with the answer
OF Mrs. Duvai as to her absence of knowledge OF
Mrs. Putnam and her family, they would be able to
deavored to show that there had been an aterca-
ton in the car between Foster and Mr..
on the part OF Foster and the running the length OF
car would not prove 1t. although no doubt the Dis
The jury had an individual responsibility for the
verdict they were about TO deliver, and which would
Divine Justice was always tempered with mercy,
and human justice should always temper its justice
piimentcd on his fairness and Then all the compIl-
nents were taken back by the statement that never
IN Mr. Bartlett's experience had he met counsel who
persevercd in case with greater pcrtinacity than
did the District Attorney.
When Mr.. Bartlett closed, at quarter to three
O'Clock, the District Attorney rose and asked the
Court whether there would be recess. and Judge
Cardozo said ''No." The District Attorney SAID that
he should probably speak Tor one hour anu u half,
and Judge Cardozo said That ne had better nd iress
The jury for an hour, and that he would give the
case 10 the jury this morning.
JUoGE GARvIN's SPEECH.
Judge Garvin then proceeded to address The jury,
and his speech was characterized by an abiniY
and fervor that has seldom been equalled in that
court. Tnelc was not the slightest necessity to call
ssience'' during It's delivery ana in many parts Of
n there considerable emotion shown Dy
ono IN court except the prisoner. lie commenced
% Of whom e had d0ssi ,or sa' r
was co-cxtensive with this State; aud the
other was co,eXtenslve with the Union: They mad
would be wen for the jury to remember that one or
these counsel mad had practice In these cases that
neither his Judge Garvins opportunities nor years
could possibly have permitted him to have Had
the prisoner been defended by less capable counsel
he might have been afraid OF pressing too hardly or
two unfairly on the prisoner. In this case such
fear need exist IN HIS mind. There had been some
other side. That remark was hardly fair or gen
crous. But was that fair or generous' The prose-
the previous day, aud at quarter to two they
rested. No capital in the records OF this court
was nor true That he desired this mans blood. 1t
was his duty 10 present The case to tho jury. The
had been commliIed The Whole community on the the
morning OF the occurrence was agreed also as 10
people Of this vast metropolis. 1t was true that the
prisoner had wife and children who were then IN
court; on the other hand. Mr.; Putnam had been
without a moments warnings for the short
time that had been allotted 10 him proved
NIL moments OF agony. He had left widow,
who mad but lately lost father; she was cut
OF from all conn ctions except that or her nus
band, who had left her house tnatmornng IN health
and strength never to return and never 70 no seen
again unwounded. What was lawf What indeed,
was law worth II II did not furnish secufityor lie
and PROPERTY Had 1t come 10 TINS In this city that
= man could not go from Eightl street TO
EOrty-sxh street ard 10 q church without his
HE beng jeOpardtZed by n drunken ruf6an? Is Ii
true that he cannot escort his vile and child home
III u car without having them inaIlted? order and
law IN peril II this kind Of thing allowed
DO, and the man who thus insults and brains people
was to escape from Its provisions. WHAT was II the
defence said murder wasy Murder was taking the
life Of another by prcmedaicd design TO XII.
Was IL anything but intent9 That intent
was present in this case What were the circum.
stances9 Mr.. Putnam was In this car. II did nol
matter. so far rs this offence was concerned,