The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-06-13
Opening Of the Case for
the Defence.
THE ADDRESS TO THE JURY.
Testimony of the Defendants
Sister in-Law.

Purdy opened the case for the defence in an ex-
ceedingly able address, occupying over an nour
anu q hall Mr.. Purdy stigmatYed the prosecution
% deliberate conspiracy which had been formed
10 send his client to the State Prison He entered
at length into the details OF the plan by which ne
declared, this purpose was to be accomplished
showing how Pettus, who was now confined in o
prison in Massachusetts,. and others concocted This
scheme OF forgery. and that the seals were made
and the bonds put upon the market long before
the time when Roberts became acquainted with
the engraver Olmstead, the witness who swore at
tins trial that he made the seals for the prisoner
He claimed that these bonds and seals were in the
possession OF Pettus on the Sd Of January, 1873
long before Olmstead had ever seen Roberts. He
closely Analysed the testimony which had been
given in regard to Roberts, conviction in COnnectl
cut IN 1851, claiming thar
HIS ENTIRE INNOCENCE WAS PROVED
BY the fact that he was pardoned by the Legisla-
trlre OF Connecticut on the certificate OF the DIS
trict Attorney declaring MIN to have been per.
fectly innocent OF the charge on which he was
sent to the State Prison. The jury would never
convict this prisoner on the testimony OF men
who were self-confessed periurers burglars and
forgers, but would undoubtedly give him an OPP
portunlty to retrieve his character, II he had pre-
viousy erred, and triumphantly acqnit him.
was taken till twenty minutes after ore The first
witness called was Mrs. Lydia J. Roberts, sister.
n-aw Of the defendant rather stout, well built
lady OF pleasing appearance, dressed in black
with dark hair and eyes, ana with perfectly self
possessed manner. She swOre that she had
known the defendant for twenty-five years. he
always resided with her and her husband when
they lived in Tenth avenue and in Twenty-frst
street; In july 1872, when she and her husband
boarded, the defendant was in Europe; she recol-
lected Roberts, conviction In Connecticut at the
time
OF THE ADAMS EXPRESS ROBBERY,
and was present at the proceedings of the CON-
mittee Of the Legislature OF Connecticut who
heard the application for pardon.
Mr.. Purdy said he would prove by Mrs. Roberts,
who heard the testimony, on what ground tho
defendant was pardoned 1T that time, and that he
INNOCENT OF rHE CHARGE.
District Attorney Phelps REPLIED that as long as
the defendant was convicted and pardoned. 1t
was immaterial under what particular circum-
stances 1t was done and why the pardon was
granted.
fu consideration to allow the prisoner to relieve
himself OF this taint ON his character as long as
he had been innocent.
Judge Brady said the defence could prove it by
competent evidence. They could call member OF
the committee.
Ex.Recorder Smith, who came in, resumed the
examination OF Mrs. Roberts. She said that her
husband at his death lett her government bonds
and property; the defendant transacted her bust
.Or her alter his ceath; he collected the
coupons on her bonds her husband lett no Will,
and she took out no letters Of administration; he
lett $50 900 in United States bonds and $4,000 or
s23 oOo in other bonds.
Ex-Recorder Smith, in answer to an objection
raised by Mr.. Phelps, said these bonds
WERE SOLD AT VARIOUS PERIODS.
The attachments in the civil suits claimed that
the q and he
ceeds OF the estate left by the defendants brother
In regard to the bonds found in ner box at the
were the bonds len by her husband; she rented
separate box because she did not wish to have her
and her brother-in-law's property mixed up; her
husband was in the liquor business and was In the
habit OF lOaning out money; she knew Mrs.
spence" Pettus with whom she first became &C
came to the house two weeks before Mr. Roberts
death il true that Mrs. Pettus stayed one ni9ht
at the house, but not that she was intimate with
her; Mrs Pettus came TO make nat for her and
it got be SO late that she stayed over night; she
never went shopping with Mrs. Pettus.
Judge Brady SAID 1t would not be competent to
go again over all the evidence la regard to these
unimportant circumstances.
Ex-Recorder Smith urged that Mrs. Pettus had
stated tnat she was intimate with Mrs. Roberts,
and gave the jury the idea that she was on famil-
lar terms with respectable people which Of itself
was calculated to sustain ner reputation. II Mrs.
Pettus had sworn that she was
MEMBER OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,
in full communion and on good terms with the
most respectable people, would HIS Honor allow
the Jury to be affected by such testimony They
would snow Cnat MIS-. PeLtuS was y OaQ woman
and one OF the chief plotters In this conspiracy.
District Attorney Phelps read the testimony of
Mrs. Pettus, showing that she never said she was
on intimate terms with Mrs. Roberts. Mrs. Pettus
said that she called on Mrs. Roberts several times
ION business.n TO the question OF the learned
counsel lex-Recorder smith) whether she was
'pretty intimate with Mrs. Roberts, she had dis
tnctly answered mo" The learned counsel had
struggled very hard to make Mrs. Pcttus swear
that she was intimate with Mrs. Roberts, but had
failed.
Judge Brady decided that the evidence was IT.
The proceedings were here interrupted for the
purpose OF examining Mr.. Joseph A. Hurlburt, "a
member OF the committee OF the Connecticut
Legislature who heard the application Tor the
pardon OF Roberts-an elderly gentleman with
sharp features and OF dignifed bearing. He SAID
lature by which Roberts was pardoned, and was
going on to state the reasons for which the pardon
The District Attorney renewed his objection that
the grounds Tor granting the pardon were gu lite
immaterial. His Honor, when charging the jury,
reasons
FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS PARDoNED
in telling them how the previous conviction might
affect their verdict In this case.
Ex-Mayor Hall said, in the course OF an elaborate
argument, his learned friend was the guardian OF
his own conscience and humanity, but he (Mr.
Ha had heard, IN his early days, or district attor
neys VINO would even allow certificates OF good
character when prisoner had previously been
convicted, not only technically, but morally. In
TINS case his learned friend had only technical
convection, and still he wished to innict double
q number OF authorities In support OF his position
that this testimony was perfectly admissible.
Judge Br ady said the question was very en-
barrassng one. This course would imply the as
sailing OF The record OF the Court OF Connecticut
by an ex parte proceeding. This was the reason
why he felt great doubts TO the proprety OF adj
mitJing this testimony.
The District Attorney asked If Hts Honor could
instruct the Jury to acfuit the prisoner OF the
charge OF having been previously convicted II they
were satisfied That he was pardoned as an inno-
cent man They must stop at the record OF the
Court, and be satisfied with the presumption that
II pardon was granted
1T WAS ALSO PROPERLY GRANTED.
ExRecorder Smith made an impassioned ap-
peal TO the Court, declaring that II there was no
precedent for this wipng ont the faint OF pre-
vious unjust conviction he now asked His Honor
to set It, In the name OF humanity and justice.
Judge Brady said he had been extremely i'm
pressed 10y all these arguments, but must exclude
the evidence. The precedent which II was sought
70 ESTABLISH, ne was sorry to say, would be fraught
with danger Although his instinct told him to
admit the evidence, he was, nevertheless COM
pelled by the teachings OF the law TO exclude it.
anti aftn fhnn mad