The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-05-13

Deputy Marshal Crowley, and had long interview
with his counsel before the proceedings COM
menced.
Additional dispositions having been presented
against the prisoner,
Mr.. Brooke, prisoners counsel, moved that he be
discharged, inasmuch as the original complaint
against him had been dismissed by the Commits
Eioner. The decision on this point was reserved.
The dispositions Of Sergeant Webb. Of the London
detective police twhsse testimony in the case has
been already fully published in the HERALD), Detec-
tive Farley and Mr.. Peter Williams were then put in.
This testimony, for the most part, had reference to
the validity OF certain dispositions taken and docu-
ments prepared in relation to the case In England.
Mr.. Brooke contended, in heightened address,
that the dispositions were not admissible in an ex,
tradition case They were not taken in legal
manner, and he further argued that this pr0secu-
ton must tail, because, as he maintained the ex-
tradition treaty between England and the United
States had not been ratified at London within six
months after 1t had been entered into between the
contracting Powers. He therefore moved that the
dispositions should be stricken from the record in
the case.
Mr.. Da Costa replied that IT was incumbent upon
the Commissioner to take into consideration all
the testimony that had been adduccd in the case.
Ii he objected to do that he might pay no attention
to certain parts OF 1t; but 1t was not either his
province or power to strike out any portion Of the
testimony.
heightened argument ensued at this point in
regard to the hearing of the testimony which had
been offered on the part OF the prosecution.
The Commissioner observed that he did not be-
lleve he had any power or authority to mutilate
the dispositions. They must stand whole Tor
what they were worth. Counsel might write out
the portions OF the testimony to which his objec-
tions were addressed and place copies Of the same
In his (the commissioners hands, and also III the
possession OF counsel for the prosecution This
would be the proper thing to do and he had no
doubt 1t would facilitate matters very much.
Mr.. Brooke SAID he would do 80; but as the de-
fence involved careful consideration OF the var-
Gus matters that had been introduced on the part
OF the prosecution, he would require an adjourn
ment OF two weeks Tor the purpose OF preparing for
the defence. He thought this request was reason
able and ought to be granted.
Counsel for the prosecution opposed the motion,
believing that 1t was within the power OF the
counsel to prepare his defence in much shorter
time.
After considerable discussion upon this point, it
was ultimately agreed that the case should go over
till Saturday next.
From statement made at the last session OF the
case 1t would appear that counsel for the defence
intends to call as witnesses Sir Edward Thornton,
the British Ambassador at Washington, and Mr..
Hamilton Fish, Secretary OF State and from what
dropped in the discussion OF yesterday 1t would
seem that these gentlemen may be summoned to
testify in regard TO some important matter in
reference to the treaty OF extraditiOn at present
existing between the United states and England.
The case accordingly stands adjourned till Satur-
day next.