The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-06

1t being late when the testimony had reached
this point, the further examination OF witnesses
was adjourned till Monday next.
THE BOUCICAULT-HART CONTRO-
VERSY.
The DISCRIMINATION OF the dramatic author
and actor, Wybert Reeve, taken bens esse, before
United States Commissioner Shields, was resumed
yesterday morning and occupied the whole oil the
day. Questions ana answers were dry and uninter-
esttDg being generally directed to and elcitng
the dramatic career oil the witness, extending
over twenty-six years. The following statements,
direct and explanatory OF the similarity OF the
play OF "Pyke OCallaghan," written by MIR. Reeve,
with 'The Skiboeah," the latter, with the eXcep.
ton of Inc portion charged by Diop Bouccault to
be taken from "The Shaughrauu" 1t being alleged
to have been copied rom ''PyKe Buckingham"
Mr. Boucicauit and Mr.. Hart were both present
during the day.
THE EXAMINATION.
To the question as to what he (Mr. Reeve
claimed To be ia the dramatic world witness
said II claim to be an author and actor ire
quently appearing in my own pieces; first wrote
as dramatic author, ABOUT twenty years ago,
piece called 1.-The Australian Hoax could not
say how many OF his compositions had been pub
lshrd; remember Just tas moment that | had
about eighteen printed, some OF which were issued
by the Dramatic Authors Association; COM
meDced nv managerial career about tfteen years
ago at the Theatre Royal, at Cardilr Wales aud AT
swansea Wales
Witness enumerated the several theatres on
the boards OF which he appeared; was personally
years; knew him by reputation for about twenty
SIX years; am now on friendly terms with HIM;
am not friendly disposed toward Mr.. Hart; at the
time OF my making my AFFIDAVIT used in the suit
for an Injunction 10y Boucicant against Hart had
no consultation With Mr.. BOuc,cault as to what
tbat aidaylt should contain; was told by Mr.
Boucicaul that he was charged by Mr.. Hart with
nass ryke u a~a ny
asked me to see The former aud compare
them and to Judge accordingly with regard to my
demand apon Mr.: Hart Tor compensation Tor his
use OF 'Pyke O'Callaghan" in The SkibDeah:'
Mr.. Bouc!cars knew nothing of nat demand be-
lore made It and ma lie no stated demand on Mr..
Hart; have up o this time made no estimate Of
what such a demand SHOULD be III figures when it
was spoken of at the interview l mad with Mr..
sation be said mad no legal right TO "PyKe O'Cai-
lagnanr
"Pyke O'Cal!aghan ~ A. About fifteen years; II
was first printed after It's production at the Surrey
Theatre. London in 1870; had it copyrighted;
never applied 10 nave any OF my plays copyrighted
In the United states; had Understood 1t would be
Fys saw The @ Uay and
'Sklbbeah'' played but once each made my
affidavit with care, and all the Facts stated are
correct.
witness was here asked to state the plot OF
'PyKe C'LalagGan." which he did,
From TINS statement the witness was examined
at great length upon the Incidents language and
scenic effects OF his play and the similarity be-.
tween them and the incidents, scenic effects &c.
In "lhe Sklbbeah.'
The remainder OF the pro,racted session was
taken up by following this line OF examination in
ELECTED. This closed the special examination OF
Mr.. Reeve
THE ADAMS EXPRESS ROBBERY.
On the reassembng OF the Court OF Oyer and
TermIner yesterday. Judge Barrett on the bench,
the court room was again crowded to witness the
fur Their proceedings in he trial OF Daniel Hawry
accused Of being implicated in the late Adams
Express Company robbery. The prisoner sat by
his counsel, A. 0akey Hall and Howe Il Hummel
still wearing the look of careless indifference that
has characterized him throughout the trial
Mr. Hall proceeded to sum up for the defence.
II was one OF his Characteristic addresses to q
jury, earnest, eloquent and imprisoned, with
flashes OF brilliant wit iumning at times the
dark background OF his logical statutory reason
ing. He began with defining the status In court
OF a confessing accompiice and his appearance as
q drilled witness, and indicated the caution with
which such testimony was to be received. He
then plunged into the subject IN medals res
wnat had the prosecution to prove That safe,
the undoubtei property OF Adams Express Com.
pany, had been stolen. Has this been proven
His opponent had SAID that he was drawing Things
very nice. The whole law was made up or nice
ties They must be pice IN criminal Jaw. Here he
adverted 10 the want OF security IN carrying out
the law, as SHOWN BY the Police Commissioners
aud Police superintendent In keeping the women
supposed 10 know something about this
robbery at Police Headquarters Tor sixty
hours without any examination before magls-
trate The next point was whether the prisoner
bad stolen safe The Jaw INDUCES IN every
side will say that Hawry took the safe, but there
Is no proof of It. important Inks are wanting.
They say iiawry had an opportunity 10 take the
safe lie was there according 10 a witness OF
theological deductions, who pronounced Hawry
swceuy VINO, after the robbery. hangs himself on
a tree OF moral o5iquity. His statement was
nneorrotorsted in every material point.
They we're 10 commit Hawry on Sweenys
testimony. He then criticised Sweeny's eyi-
dence, showing how. as ne claimed, II essentially
JAILED in bringing nome the alleged crime to the
prisoner. lie enforced on the jury the TACT that
man must be convicted according 70 law.
were they not produced Where dld the bonds
either the morcy or the bonds was ever In the
possession OF The Adams Express Company.
Assistant District ATTORNEY Russell made q
lengthy address to the jury in reply. he insisted
that tne testimony against the accused was not
Only oy,rwnelming out OVERWHELMINGLY c1nc,n-
ply sailed around The evidence, that he did not 40
through It and SIT It, that he DID not dare do So
On tneir part he claimed that they had cOnciu-
siyeiy SHOWN that a safe had been stolen from me
once OF Adams Express Company and that hawry
Judge Barretts charge was comparatively
BRET nut explicit and olnted. lie poin ted out
that 10 sustain the Indictment 1t was necessary TO
show, first, that u safe nad been stolen and,
second, that the sale was stolen BY the prisoner.
~ was for hem 10 determine whether these facts
mad been proven
Tne jury were out about fifteen minutes, when
they brought in verdict OF guilty. Inc prisoner
received the verdict with perfect cOmposure.
sentence, on motion OF Mr. Hall, was vstpon ed,
TO allow the prisoner to be used a. wItness In
the proceedings instituted by the latter against
the Police Com mssIoners, IN which he desires the
attenu zee OF Iiawry as a witness. Meantime
Hawry'a counsel will take measures TO obtain
new trial on the exceptions taken at the trial,
which not 0nlv covered nearly tue entire testim"ns