The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-13

and why did he not then move the courts Of justice
70 nave Perry punished 1t was not until the 10th
Of April, when Mr.. Tucker went before Commits
sloner Shields that there was any effort made to
catch this perjurer, Perry, and alter some doubts
Re wsos %aer %Ss
not Mr.. Tucker know that any Judge OF the United
states was committing maglstrate who could
Perry He tMr. Carter had rarely seen .
case Of grosser perjury In 2 court OF JUS
ceeded anu in 'AI intensity S and maiisnity ' BY
the false evidence of George W. Bowen.
The meanest thing about the whole business
evidence on innocent shoulders. Counsel then
went on to comment on the evidence Of the wit
aware that Nine. Jumel had q son, but that, as he
was illegitimate, he could not inherit The jury
would observe that the Witnesses on this point used
identlcaly the same language Now. II was I'M
possible that even the most truthful witnesses
would use the same language in testlying as to the
witnesses they were entitled to give 1t credit. Mr..
Chase gave that statement most positive denial,
ana though ne was party IN interest IN TINS SUIT
dervoort, who was one Of the witnesses to whom
he alluded and who had entered into an arrange
cute claim to this property Mr..
Chase had received letter, and In consequence OF
But would he not have been q natural born fool to
have stated to Mrs. vanderv0ort that he knew G. w.
Bowen was illegitimate ana could not inherit
climates to inhert2 As to the fancied personal
Resemblance OF the plaintir to Mme Jumei he was
not going to waste the time OF the jury on such
trash az evidence attempting to take away the
property OF the defendant on the production OF an
old Autograph which was, perhaps as much like
Haughter.) Mr.. Carter them In an elaborate and
able manner. commented at considerable length
upon the testimony Catherine r. Williams, Henry
had been produced as Witnesses for the paintiff.
He contended that the evidence of those witnesses
witness for plaintiff, Charity Kenny, it had been Of
fered to prove by her that the PLAINTIFF Bowen, was
the whole character OF the case as it had been rst
presented by the plaintiff. What sort OF confidence
was to be put IN a case the foundation o. which
could be shifted In that manner from moment to
moment He confidently asserted that there was
not one on the long list OF witnesses produced by
hdence either for fidelity or honor. 1t was one of
the remarkable circumstances OF this case that the
plaintiff never produced in writing any record
the circumstance OF his birth as the OF Madame
Jume. Such circumstance was never once
Jumel wrote such letter it would be evidence
In connection with some act, as sign Of her recog
milton Of q son during her lifetime. But II was
said by the plaintiff that Madame Jumel did not
like to expose herself to the disgrace OF saying she
had an iegltimate son. That statement ignored
binary fOndness OF Madame Jumel for children who
would have believed that If she had had child she
would not at some time or other, have had that
creature under her roof and clasped him to her
HEARTY mothers love was not passing emo
ton; 1t was solemn institution of nature, estab-
lished for the wisest purposes without which
the human race would perish and AMI
NAL life become extnguished. The plain
tiff said that Madame Jumel could not
have endured the disgrace Of saying that she had
had an illegitimate son. But the plaintiff had
made q point upon this trial of saying that she
was brought up in Providence under the indu-
ence and In the society or prOfigate people. There
fore, this statement, when advanced by plaintiff
had In his (Mr. Carter's Judgment no force what
ever Mr. Carter referred to the evidence OF Mr..
Devine and Mr. Charles Hart as proving the utter
unrehability OF the plaintiffs testimony The
learned gentleman continued his review OF the
case, and after stating that he had no fear what
ever OF any part he had taken In this suit for Mr..
Chase, having never eaten idle bread as lawyer
and never organized legal raids to drive people
from their possessions, he remarked that his task
was done, and that II he thought for moment that
the defendant could be deprived OF his possessions on
the perjured evidence that had been adduced, he
would lose all faith in the administration OF Justice
II the heirs OF Madame Jumel could be deprived Of
their property on testimony such as had been
offered for the platntln, the possessions OF man
In the community were safe. The jury by their
verdict could not restore to Mr.. Chase all he had
lost. Like Tantaus, he had been placed up to the
lips in water and had not been allowed to drink 1t
but they could by their verdict, which he conf
IDENTITY expected-bY prompt and decisive action
defeat this nearious attempt to deprive him OF his
property.
MIR. Carter closed his argument shortly after
four O'Clock, when the Court adjourned till this
morning. Counsel for plaintiff will sum up to-day.