New-York tribune., 1872-07-06

iccttng questions put by themi nave
correct or not; I took the statement OF Laurence
Carr, the hackman, who understand has sinoe ueu
TESTIMONY OF JUDGE BIxBY.
Butler II. Bxby, examined by Mr. McKeon: am |
Police Justice presiding at the Yorkyile Police Court
there was a complaint made before me, by prisoner
named Mansfield. against Fisk and examinations took
place times before me in the last year; the
complaint was made in November, and the several ex
ainatons extended 10 the 9th OF January; produce
the complaint and the warrant in that case there was
hearing before me the 9th Of January Miss Mansfield
and Miss williams were in attendance; Stokes was ex-
amined as witness that day and the proceedings Nr
minated ABOUT oTIoSh NJ NJ DE- n,oGe nv, Josephine
f. Mansfield against Fisk, for libel there was an am
King FsR was present at one hearing but by consent
ne was permitted TO leave the first days examination
was held on the 18th November. -, A.. -
Q. Can you give me, as as you can the time at
noon os 81 tbe ' stb Of January A. II was about Il
O'Clock remember the time Miss Mansfield Col rel
see them into the carriage because was IN shother
part OF the building OF the time . s.. ,,o,seo,d was
@ Were any directions given with regard to the arrest
Mr. McKeonwe want to show that so far rom & na
tanning vindicye spirit toward FISK stOkts uu ~
desire to have Fisk taken away from his business ahuSo
Inc question was excluded by the Court.
TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS NJ BIXBY.
Francis NJ Bxby testified, in reply to Mr.. Tremaine
reooect seeing stokes on afternoon OF the 9th OF
January last; I him also. that forenoon at the
Yorkve Police Court; he called upon me at my office.
O. State what purpose he called upon you iort OO-
iected TO BY the District-AttOrney
Mr. McKeon said this was the last man who saw the
prisoner before he stepped into the carriage and mean
20 prove by him that when Stokes down town he
went into the Office of Mr. Bixby 10 see If he had re-
ccived any information in relation to proceedings
The Court permitted the question and the witness
gard TO hs being indicted by the Grand Jury on the
complaint Of Fisk told him had heard that tne u1 %
ter was before the Grand Jury, but that II was us
missed. ,, o,,.d e.
Mr. Tremain said the theory OF the prosecution was
this: That stokes started mission of death, that he
FS thai he then proceeded to the Grand Central Hotel
and that while prowinc about the hall in search OF his
other hand it was sought be proved that this meeting
was oosethsa era intentions MIC ana the point now
raised this: Whether the defense was 10 DO 80; cA
cluded from showing declarations made by me pfis
oper OF the different steps during his passage from the
park down the time OF the shootngi was theIe any
rule OF justice or propriety IN not peIniIiS % H9 ~ u
evidence these natural declarations when loIneu %
complete chain Of evidence M stokes ne nd hest pr
10 the Grand Central Hotel Tor tine purest anu DeST p
poses and he submitted that his declarations hnmsu
more intention of meeting Fisk than of meeting
dead Of the truth Of this they would satisfy the
Mr. Garvin called attention to the case OF the People
agt Real where the same point was raised Dut II Was
party shall not have it in his power to manufacture
defense for himself when ne was LTePas ~ m ea 10 me e
which we allege in this case could plot the whole
defense: he understands his traniOf thought and
he goes on with the preparation for great crime. The
whole of the evidence showed he was waiting 1or
Fisk He pursued him the whole afternoon; he rushed
the Grand Central HOTEL and II this principle now
asserted was be carried every criminal even Whlle
contemplating murder, could form complete ana per-
feet defense. - ,,..,..,. Al
cussion on an inerocutoy quest4n snou & nav & G @
the DstricAttorney opportunity 10 say that inc l-
terests OF justice should require him to enter upon an
argument upon the par distorted aye perjured evil
dence that has been put in on the part OF the ecu
r.a riot attpmUtpQ
stokes went to this hotel for the purpose OF
there for no such purpose by his declarations he
met by this objection. with two OF the aDISs cOu
sci in the State 20 assist and aid and advise 5he psS
Attorney sought to continue to Keep the pad9cK on tHe
prisoners mouth and all this Was the result OF tne tes
mony Of that little peTlured Ihonas hart, WHO was
brought into this court by an unseen ana unknown Unknown
power There was power De1 and '19 9 this View theV
protested against the objection of the
which would practically shut the mouth OF the prisoner
aud deprive him of his just rights .., -, .,o o.,o
side attached much Importance the fact that private
counsel were associated with hun for the prosecution In
the great trial Of Cole in Albany MT Ireman was prl-
vate counsel and only prosecuted once but twice
Mr.. Tremain-I appeared on the diIect .,
the Attorney General was never private counse III
criminal case. - .., d.
np Of the state and ont Of private individual. Money.
blood money, from the State just as good gold as
GATES were honorable in the professon and II
would not change them If they were apg9@ntea @ Oy tnS
he prosecuted with Col. Fellows; ...,,-o.o ,,uo.
Mr. McKeOn-I meant 10 say never was private pros
MT Garvin IwaTmiyl-The gentleman appeared in the
shouts when his own pocket filed with blOodmoney.
Mr.. McKeOn-I was employed by the state: r.. 49,,
Mr. Garvin continued 70 say that did not AFFECT the
merits OF the case having advered to the question
Of admission in evidence OF the declarations OF the
prisoner, he maintained they should be excluded
Judge IngrahamIt is right t. give these declarations
I'm with the 0esta bat this Is not decara
tion in connection with the res gea 1t is declaration
made previously, and of those declarations which, IN
my Judgment cannot be given at this tme As regards
the private COUNSEL desire that no further reference
should be made 10 them during the trial.
Mr. the II, during
he had With Mr. Stokes IN the afternoon OF me Gth
OF January anything, and So what In relation
rason eiyen Tor making the qury in regard
dictmentf Objected 10, and excluded
TESTIMONY OF RUFUS F. ANDREWS.
Rufus f. Andrews was called to the stand after Mr..
Bixby and testified in relation to an interview which
took place between himself Stokes the 9Th Of jan
nary in the formers Office, at quarter to O'Clock Mr.
MeKeon said he proposed show by the witness that
Stokes came 20 make inquiries In relation to his rumored
indictment by the Grand Jury at Fisks nsgation Inc
first question as TO stokess inquiry about the indictment
was objected TO- allowed by the Court The witness
said: He asted me If 1 knew whether an indictment
had been found against him by the Grand Jury OF the
Over and Terminer told him that 30 far as had been
allie 10 ascertain there had not; he then asked mo
whether II an indictment was obtained, ne cOuld De
(Oected the ground that IL was anOthe questOh,
p1talowed and the witness repeatedl-He then asked
me whether II an indictment was obtained he could be
brought from Rhode Island by reQusltohi Iolu hll-
Judge IngTahan-There stop.
o. What further did you say TO him A. simply told
hi,n- Objected 10 by the DstrictAttorney.
Mr. McKeon-NOw, Sir. intend 10 hold the District
Attorney his official responsibility We are ullng
nar Tor his he and everything connected with the
transacon should developed. want 70 know It IS
in obedience his duty or the power behind hm ,haI
i hold you and the men whose hands are on your
throat to their responsibility. $1,000, uo,o..o,,, NJ,
Jud0e Ingraham-I have endeaYored repeatedly, MI:
McKeon 10 stop this insisted on 1t on the part OF
The mnt Sot be made to the
Mr. McKeOn-Recollect. ar, We are delehuins man