New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-05
JOSEPH II. RICHARDS RECALLED.

O. Which did you think in fault--Mr. Wheeler the
spirit (Laughter A. cannot say, Sir DO not know
JOSEPH II. RICHARDS RECALLED.
Joseph H. Richards was then recalled on the
part Of the plaintiff and further examined:
Mr.. MOrrs-Mr. Richards. you recollect going before
the Investigating Committee last summer at DR. S,orrs's
hOusef A. Not at DIR. 5tOrrs's
Q mean az Augustus 5tOrrs'si A. Yes Sir.
@. Did you Gen. Tracy thorei A. Yes, Sir.
@. Was Mr. Tracy there when you arrived or did he
come after youi A. He not there when arrived
Sir
@. Had you any conversation with any Of the members
Of the Committee before his ARRIVAL A. Yes
O. Were you introduced Tracy after he arrived
A. Yes.
O. What time In the evening was that A. should
think little after eight; sm not sure.
@, And what occurred after you were introduced TO
Mr. Tracyf
Mr.. shearman-Thst won't do We must have the pre-
else questions put that put TO Mr. Tracy.
Mr.. Morrs-Oh. this Is preliminary.
Mr. Beach-That applied. Sir. I'm this In
stance because when Mr.. Tracy denied the particular
question: answered the particular question which was
presented him. he then went somewhat against my
protest to give narrative Of what did pass between
himself aud MT Richarls-
Mr. Morris-And detailed the conversation.
Mr. Beach-And detailed the conversation; and we
must therefore suppose get the conversation from TINS
witness.
Mr. shearman-That did not cross-examins-
ton and don't that 1t occurs anywhere.
Mr.. Morris-I had there a minute ago
Mr. Evarts-wcil IL your Honor please. this IA not
evidence i'm chief and what took place there IL OF no con
sequence.
Mr. Beach-It ia a contradiction of Mr. Tracy.
Mr. Evarts-A contradiction
Judge Neilson-The counsels Wow seems to bs that
attain Ia
question could have been that think the examina
ZION ought to DO predioated what Mr. Tracy said
Mr. Eyarts-It Is merely matter OF Impeachment OF
Mr.. Tracy
Mr. Fullerton Well. isn't that Important
Judge Neilson-The question II, did you have con
versaton. &c. Go on Mr.. Morris
BIZ Morrs-state what occurred after you were miro
duced to Mr.. Tracy.
Mr. Evarts-Weil -
Mr. Morris ITO the wtnessI-As between you and Tracy
Mr.. Eyarts-You are ~ Ask further what Mr.. Tracy
said occurred.
Judge Neiison-No; this question 49, did you ha'o
conversation with Mr.. Traoyf
The witness-Yes. Sir
Mr.. Morris-state whore that was; whether In The
presence Committee mott A was seated win
the Committee talking with them. and Mr. Tracy came
in and was him he then bockonod mo to
come into front paTor; went with him INTO the
front parior and he made remark about my appear
Ing before the Committed
g. 90 ON aud glyo what occurred between you ana DIT
Tracyi
A CONTEST TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY.
Mr.. Shearman-That is just what we object
MI Morris-But understand the Court permits It.
Judge Neilson-No. lro Mr. Morris.l Can you turn.
Judge to Mr. Tracy's statement on this subject
Mr. Beach-Yss Sir this his examnl ton read
ngl:
O. Did you see Mt Richards when he was before the
o. Did Won have CO nversation with him AZ the place
where the Committee met. before he presented himseh
| to the Committee 7 A. did. -. T.,
O. Did you ask him questions III regard 10 "hat nv
o. Did Won ask him whether his sister had ever con
fessed to him adultery with Mr.. beecherf a dd
| did in substance, think -, A.. T., ~. ,,o
O. In substanoet a. NO, L oid HUI tHat 10 no' 'A'
O. We'll in substance That A. No asked him If his
! O. One moment A. Excuse me. - . =.
g / do not ask what You asked him. Did YOU not. IN
substance inquire OF him whether his sister Mrs IitO
had admitted 70 lim adultery with MI beechori
o. Did not in answer to your question, Mr. Richards
say to you that he declined to answer IT, or IN substance
ne' ON don't AK what it was-I ask you II he did not
say that substancef A. Well, say don't remeioei
| uniting such q question to Mr.. Richards.
o. Then You do not remember mis- declining to answer
A. Oh yes Sir; remember his declining TO hola Dan any
conversation with me or communicating W mo any "'n4
| @ WHAT A. know that Mr.. Richards said that ne
W9ula % in raes 70 tat matter that it was a fam
v matter into which had refused TO 10 drawn, ant
O. Well did not ask you about that Sir my question
has altogether different signifcanee pa you nI
that interview put q question 10 Mr., Richards ctlt
upon him state whether or not Dis sister MIS-
Ws Riohsrds his wife the fact Illicit connection, o.
adultery or sexual intercourse, with MI beecnfrt
No Sr-not specifically Us you put H. nor III Substance
o. asked you whether you in substance pnt any in
qufry Of that characterf A. answered you' no' III u
O. Very we'll Now did not, in answer to such an in
qulry upon your pspr f Mr Richards declined &
answer any nterrogatory and gave me notice that ~
would not answer any inerrogatory concerning Ills iAi
Q. Well we have got that before A. Well. ,,,
O Now was not such an inquiry, In substance, pu
him and did not Mr. Richards then decline TO answer IL
and did not in substance reply Non c ear
tell you what did transpre, Mr. Beach, II you Wish
N1S" Wo You have very often addressed that to me
Now whether Mr. Tracy mentioned that topic again
/ don't recoIect
Judge Neilson-He aiterwato SAID he explained to M
Richards why would BIO safe for hH 70 attend befor
the Committee and have the question put and decline
answer because there would be implication ass.Ds
his by his declining think the counsel might 10
terrogate him each feature Of that as he passes over
Mr. Eyarts-If your Honor please evidence in chief
the subject is not admissible.
Judge Neson-No. of course. II is merely to explain
or contradict Mr. Tracys statement or TO show bias Oh
| whatever II may be-
| Mr. Evarts-Not to show bias-to contradict him.
Judpe Neson-Wen whatever IL Ia. I don't like 20
| the word contradict myself when can avoid 1t.
Mr. Evarts-NOw, the general rule Ia that when pure,
collateral topic introduced and the first witness, witt
view to dsparage his character. &C., Is interrogsted
the interrogation take the answer and there IL th
end OF it, II lie seeks TO make the witness dsparag
bimae he must take the answer by which the witnes
maintains his character.