, 1876-10-22
witnesses as to Character Exam
ined Yesterday.
THE Accused Takes the Stand in
His Own Defense,
And Relates the Circumstances Leading
to the Tragedy.
Sullivan Violently Assails the
States Attorney,
Ind Displays Temper Anything But
Lamblike.

The Arguments Of Counsel to Com
mence on Monday.
The sixth day Of the trial of Alexander Sui
,;van for the murder Of Frnncis Hauford drew
AZ large crowd as have packed the Criminal
cm.rt-room every day since the commence
ment. It was believed that yesterday would
ritness the closing Of the case for the defense,
and suci proved to be true. The testimony on
hoth sides is all in, and nothing remains but
+he arguments before the jury will take the
circumstances of the killing into consideration,
md decide the case one way or the other
There were many ladies present in the morn
ipr, and Sheriff Agnew gave them seats nearthe
Ejtnessstand.
Upon the opening Of the court, the testimony
for the defense WAS continued.
WITNESSES As TO CHARACTER.
F.H. Winston, John Forsythe, r. 4. Hoyne,
7 O. Rutter, and S. s. Hayes were called as to
character, and testified that, as far they knew,
srI1yan's reputation as q peaceablc and orderly
citizen was good
The Court asked if 1t VAS necessary to pur-
sue this subject further.
Mr.. Reed said the prosecution did not propose
tn Question the defendants character, and he
told counsel SO Friday.
Mr.. O'Bricn remarked that he wanted to in
trnduce the members Of the late Board of Pub
liz Works, and Louis Wahl, Redmond Prindi-
vile, and Mr.. James K Thompson were put on
the stand, and gave evidence to the same effect
as the witnesses named above
JOHN c. R1CHBERG SWORN:
Know Sullivan; his reputation is good. Was
o amember Of the Board Of Education for six
years,-P1esidcnt Tor two.
Odd she ever attend any private meeting
of The Board, or any coinmittee-meeting? =.
Objected to.
Mr.. Svett urged that the document {Han-
Ill the deyiltry in the Board OF Education, and
that cllarre was in the portion Of the article
which Sullivan took to Hanford-
The Court admitted the evidence.
A.-She never was
O.-Did sne at any time or place, under any
circumstance, attempt to influence the action Ut
your Board or any committee. A--Ncyer in
Committee Of the Board, or the Board, with the
exception that she 6aw me on one or two occ:-
siops when the question Of salary was up IN the
Board. She stated that it was rot fair to the
women teachers to reduce their salarles,-to
make wholesale reduction Of their small sala-
AXtNAS
ries OF Is per cent ...--:
TIE COURT WITH DEFENDANT.
Mr.. Reed objected TO this, asking il it was
competent. It didn't make any difference
whether the statements IN Inc communication
were true OF fulse.
The Court think it does
Mr. Reel-Does your Honor allow them to
prove her conversational
The Court-fcs.
Mr. Swct5 was going to say somethingg-make
III: Reed (interzupting} What is the use? the
Odd she speak in favor Of any class OF
women! . .'.
Objected to, since it was not admissible un-
der any rule ct law.
The Court-Therc is difference OF opinion
On that
M. Van Arman-I should say there is-a wide
difference
The Court say it is competent. [Sensa-
tion.l
U-state to the jury if she ever attempted to
influence any corrupt legislation On the part OF
the Board.
Objected to.
Mr.. O:Bricn wanted to show that the COM
munication vas internal.
The CourrThc obje:tionis overruled.
A.-She never did,-for two reasons
Mr. Reed objected to the reasons.
Q.-Did she ever! A-She never did.
Odd she eycr try? A.-She never tried
! Nou suppose IL EfCf EllcIEu AEF Mluu.
BIBLE In TIE SCHOOLS
Odd she ever do anything, or attempt to
do anything, to influence the exclusion Of the
Bible from the schoolsl
Objected to.
Mr.. swctt-That is part OF the charge.
The Court-dnswer the question.
Al never had a conversation with Mrs. Sui
1iyan upon that subject in my life in any mall
0er shape, or way
There was no Ioss-c3amination.
WILLIAM J. ENGLISH SWORN:
An lawyez; live At Nc: 27 l,'iiana street.
tempt to influence the Board. She had no con-
ncetlon with corrupt ring, for there was no
rorTurt ring in the Board, as fnr as know.
Aentord was Assistant Superintendent Of
Schools
Q.-Was he rcduccds
Objected TO.
The Court-1t is competent to KNOW all the
surrounding circumstances Of the ease.
Al don't know whether he was reduced or
not, but he applied for tho position ol PRINCIPAL
Of school. was at the Council during the
time the article was presented, read, and dis
cussed
MRS. sELL1yAS's CHASTITY
Q.-Nlat impression Gid tic article produce
Oh ron au1 the bystant1ers:
Objected to as inlmattTia1.
Nr. Swett thought it was pertinent as shoW~
ing the state OF defendants mind.
The Court could not see any pertinency N
Low others understood it.
Ar. Van Arnan urged that it was an attempt
to force en- unnatural construction upon the pa
per, b. witnesses tcstifying that in the reading
OF it they construed it as an attack upon the
chastity Of the defendants wife. 1t hau no
sor1 Of relevancy
AL. SWEET contended that Sullivan acted upon
an apparent state OF facts honestly and In good
faith. lie wanted to show that persons who
heard the article having no motive to miscon-
strue it construed it as containing charges
against the ci,ustity Of the lady.
Mr Van Artnan said il thnt reasoning were
true, the prosecution would hare the right to
cali witnesses who heard the paper read to prove
that they did not so constr1c it.
The Court-TLal is done in slander cases.
Mr.. Recd-This is not SANDER case.
The Court-1t is competent to sho" no" Inc
bgstandcrs understood the wording.
Mr. Van Arn1an-1 hayr nothing more 70 say.
The Court has the power to decide, and hare
only to submit
Q.-You heard it read and discusseds A.
les, sir
MR.. ESGL1sH's 1,ArnEss1oS.
Q-What impression did it create on d. your
mind and the minds of those who heard L.
The "other minds'' was objected TO.
The Court-Hc must he asked in Hnat sensc
he understood it.
=. ..34.. and