The New York herald., 1874-11-18
THE aLENDENN1Ne TRIAL.

Refusal Of tho Prssbytery to Hear Re-
butttng Testimony-Protest OF the
Prosccution-All Sessions Hersa fter To
BE Held fn Secret.
Yesterday was the twenty second day OF the
Gendennlng investigation at Jersey City. There
was fair attendance OF presbyters. Rev. Mr.
Booth moved that committee be appointed TO
prepare digest or the case. In order that 1t
might be ready al the same time as the verdict
OF the Presbytery. The motion was adopted. and
the Rev. Messrs. Booth, French and Waterbury
we're appointed
When the reading OF she cross-examinaton was
concluded DR.. Imbrie asked the defendant some
questions. to which the following answers we're
given when Miss Pomeroy made the statements
to me In regard to the individuals with whom she
said she had Intercourse she gave the date and
circumstances connected with each case; she
talked like sane person. but with certain de-
gree OF hesitancy. which / attributed to feeling
OF shame.
Q. Did you ever charge any Of these persons
with being the ather Of her child A. did not.
q. Did you not charge Mr.. Northrup to his face
A. don't think l did; told him had heard
something about 1t he said. "Wh0 charges me In
that way 7" answered thar did not and that II
be chose to accuse himself had no objection.
Mr.. bod objected that this line Of examination
was
STRETCHING TOO PAR.
He thought that the decision OF the Prcsbytery o
lew days ago that Mr.. Glepdcnnng should not
mention names was very wise and prudent and he
hoped 1t would be adhered TO. He had been
speaking TO one Of the civil justices, vino informed
him that the decision oil the Presbytery was very
judicious inasmuch as Mr.. Glendennng would be
liable to q suit for SANDER the hands OF any OF
the parties so named. and that IN such a suit
the clvil tribunal would take no cognizance OF
the TACT that the statement was made under an
oath administered Dy the Presuytery In other
words, such an oath would be no protection
against
SUIT FOR sLANpER.
Or. Imbrie then asked the question, tf he relied
solely on Miss Pomeroy's statements as the sole
and the defendant answered in the anirma-
tive. He added that ne had no suspicion till
tain degree OF suspicion when he received the an
onymous letters.
DR.. lmorle explained in answer TO the objection
questions was to nave the
CHARACTERS OF RESPECTABLE MEN
IN the community placed where they properly
In answer to further questions defendant said
statement, but not all.
Mr.. Horace Dean recalled-Mr Glendenning
called Gu me the morning alter his arrest aud
showed me letter ne mad received from MISS
Poneroy deter producedl that Is the letter; it
have never seen Mss Pome, oy's handwriting ex-
cept IN some papers connected with this case.
know this letter was lrom Miss Pomeroys 4. Mr..
Gendennlng told me SO.
s saai S When e Ss aaa
Gendenning told me he had been arrested the
previous nignt and that Miss pomeroy had given
hltn tins letter unsolicited on the Sunday previous,
and that she had explained 1t in part but never
entirely; he said he intended to use 1t In his de-
lence; ne told me tnat when he was arrested he
leanzed the necessity OF having that paper.
DR.. Riggs repeatedly reminded the witness that
SPECIFIC ANSWERS
without .he "of course" undoubtedly" &c.
Rev. Mr.. Moore recalled-I called on MI. Glen
tor me; one was from Miss Pomeroy to HIM, aud
the other on the second eal OF the sneet copy
was explanatory OF the other the letters here are
the same as he read them, but don't tnink he
& s sa
under which he received them. On cross-exam-
tnation the witness tntimated tnat his
MEMORY FAILED HIM
tions between him ana Mr.. Glendenning; the lat
ter Left the impression on his mind tnat he had
given MISS Poineroy the watch and cham. but he
could NOT tell at what time the conversation oc-
July and the l5tn OF November. lie was asked the
questlon-Did you not nave the impression that
Mr. Glendenning's admission that he gave her the
watch and chain was an unfavoraDle one to MIN 2
A. No. the cross-examlnation encited one IN
pOrtant point. There was
VERY SERIOUS DISCREPANCY
between Mr.. Glendennng's statements to the wit
ness and those to Rev. Air. French regarding the
presents. 10 the witness Mr.. Gendenning stated
tnat he had bought the watch and cnatn at MISS
Pomer0y's request, while to the Rev. Mr.. French
he stated that he presented them to ner the an
nlversary OF ner union with the church and as an
encouragement to her to lead
TRUE CHRISTIAN LIFE.
This witness having been resworn previous TO
giving his testimony, DR.. Edwards arose and
asked the Moderator II the practice was not trreg-
uar. The Moderator replied that 1t was the prac.
tice In Presbyterian assemblies for witness to
take an oath whenever he comes to testify on o
new subject.
MIR. Mesereau asked the Moderator when and
where he ever knew Of such a case.
The Moderator-rhe Moderator declines to
state.
Mr.. Mesereau--Then don't care to hear It.
DR.. Eddy never heard OF It before.
THE DEFENCE CLOSED.
Mr.. Dod here announced that the defence had
no further testimony to otter. Whether 1t would
be necessary to introduce other witnesses here
alter depended on the course the prosecution
might take.
long debate ensned on the question of ad.
journment, and IT was finally agreed that the next
session be held IN the parlOr Of the First Presby
ran church, Jersey Guy, next Monday week, at
hal!-past nine O'Clock A. NJ, when the summing
up will take place. As lar rs the public are con-
cerned, the trial closed yesterday. Nothing Iur-
ther will be known Till the verdict is rendered,
except the testimony of the Rev. Mr.. French. by
commission. Tne commission consists Ot the kew.
Acssrs. Fisner, Eddy and Martin.
Tur nru nrMANM NnAr