The New York herald., 1877-12-11
THE COURTS.
A Time for All Things, Including
Quail on Toast.
DIVORCE ENTANGLEMENTS
a Homicide in Which Plea Of Sef-De-
fence Is Not Sustained.

,.c,,vs nv the Society for the Preservation Of Came
while making his professional rounds in this city was
attracted TO the Southern Hotel, on Broadway. He
sntsred The restaurant and ordered quail on toast
Having the quail and paid for II he took card
pf the house and At the bottom OF the stairs on his
vay out made me orandun Of the tran sacIion in
book The unusual circumstance OF patron Of res
saurant making mem Uranium OF what he had Tor
lunch was explained In Part l OF the Marine Court
vssterday. before Judge McAdam and jury, on the
trial OF suit brought by Royal Phelps, president Of
the Society for the Preservation OF Came 10 recovera
nns Of SIS from Robert r. Martin, proprietor OF the
Southern Hotel, for having sold quail out oi
season As IN all similar that have como before
the courts hitherto detective of the society was
the principal witness Having testified generally 70
ths facts as already stated Edwards was cross
examined his capacity as an expert in game On
these points he testified that he knew the difference
between quail and grouse ana prair,e chicken he
knew what he ate neither OF the latter nor was u
..wllI you swear 1t was qual," inquired counsel
for the defendant.
ssTo tue best OF my knowledge and DeIef IL was"
SHOW, what IS the difference between quail and
prarie chicken Z" continued counsel
s.rhe chicken is larger" snswered the expert
''But supposng the chicken was young chicken
and the same SIZE as quail what would De 'he aler
ence then - queried counsel again.
This seemed TO stasger tho expert a moment, Dut
rallied sufficiently say uaat one was larger than
sBut, have supposed them TO be Of the same
sxc,n interrupted counsel
between the two supposed birds OF the same SIZE.
''rne quail" he SAID, 'is small plump bird and goes
with its head up -" 'Wel," interposed tne
lawyer, seeing that the witness hesitated.
swell, I'll swear tnat was quail, anyway" added
the witness with emphasis and an apparent sense OF
relief But no sooner had tho witness escaped rom
the entanglements OF counsePs questions, than ne
became plunged into still deeper Confusion oy ques
"Are YOU sure what you got was not Philadelphia
squad instead of quail ?" asked this juror.
The answer was that ne had not seen fhiiaoepnia
squab and could say exactly what u was IKE On
this point the was assailed by numerous ques-
tions by defendants lawyer, the result oil which was
that he mad eaten Phiadelphia squad; did not
know If its meat whter or backer than quairs;
he believed the latter's was dark; the man who
waited the restaurant was dark too, and he
saw two signs at the outer door with hr. Martins
name on them-at least, ono sign; positively Of ono
thing he was prepared to swear the bird got
with which he warmed his inner man on that chill
March DAY was a quail; as this he could not De
mistaken, Tor his brother lived on The Western
This closed the expert'~ testimony, with q SEEM
tnRly grave DOUBT still lnds OF the jurors as 10
The species OF bird which had given rise 10 the
suit But at this point Mr. Cutnbert the counsel ior
the plaintiff came TO the experts relief and making
himself witness cause, testified that after tho
commencement OF The suit the defendant adm 10
him that he was the proprietor oi the Southerh hote
and stated that the quail which formed the basis OF
abe suit mad been served his restaurant and that
his COOK had informed him that It was one OF ot
which had beef purchased some time previously.
Counsel for dGfendant-Your Honor, nave no wit
nosses present. ana must rely on the eAPeIts oeec's
NJ such.
Judge McAdam-Gentlemen of the jury, under di.
rection Of the Court you VIII hnd verdict IN vor ol
ingly, to which is 10 be added SO costs
THE NORRIS DIVORCE SUIT.
The examination in the Morris divorce suit was
concluded yesterday before Judge Van Hoesen, hold
ing Special Term OF the Court Of Common Pleas. Mr..
Matthew T. Breen. counsel for the plaintiff, continued
kar Of Cnf la 10
tant The Colonel gave a more minute history of his
wanderings after his separation from his wife 10 1854
he stated mong other things that through the inhu
Of Mr.. Augustus ScheIi he succeeded IN obtain.
Ing governments appointment at Hilton Head, ). G.,
and when returned TO this city be received as
saary In another SITUATE the sum OF Slzo month.
He admitted mat ne had lived with anotncr woman
since separation from his wic, but claimed that
he mad offered TO support her and two oil their chill
dren then under age but that she had refused 10 ve
with him.
After Mr.. Coles cross -exam alton had been con-
cluded Ida Morris, the poetess, was placed on the
stand and br le1y examined by Mr.. Emanuel IL. Ran
DALI counsel Tor the defendant. Sne stated tnat she
lived High Bridge and acquainted with the par
ties TO the suit called Mrs. Morris and told
her that her uncle had requested her TO call upon her
ami reouest her 10 come and live with him and that
he support her and ther two children out she
refused saying that her son John was good son 10
her anu she would not leave him. MISS Morris was
CROSS ned at some length by Mr Breen In an
swer TO questions put 10 ner by her cross-intcrlo
cutor Miss Morris said that at the Tune she visited
ing there she very well acquainted with a Miss
Psrey, literary character, who, although married
woman, was known by her maiden name.
"Did you 90 down south with Aiss Farleyf" asked
Mr. Brun.
"No, sir"
"Did you &c there with any oneY"
"Yes, went with the french Countess Nine. de
6oza
The witness said that she had married twice.
but had the name oil either oi her husDanaa
sne stated rther that her uncle, accompanied by his
two alleged Legitimate children, had VISITED her at
her house IN Hign Bridge .
"D'd YOU KISS the cnidren r
Eyes, sr.o
"were you at the time visiting terms with the
plaintiff Mrs. MorrisW
eyes, sir.n
Nv hen you visited her did you kiss her, toof"
This concluded tho examination OF Miss Morris
Some other important testimony was taken, alter
which The was submitted 20 Judge Van Hoesen
without argument
JUSTICE TEMPERED WITH MERCY.
Daniel ). Murphy was placed the bar Of the Court
Of General Sessions, Part before Judgc Gildersieevc,
yesterday, Tor trial upon Indictment Tor man
slaughter in the hrst degsee for having taken The lilo
Of Michael Caniil upon the 18th ol July last during
quarrel Assistant District Attorney Herring prose-
cuted for the people and Mr. William y. knizing
psared as counsel Tor the prisoner. Mr.. Herring.
opening the case briefly recapiuaicd The facts, and
called Timothy Drisco, the proprietor Of the lager
beer saloon No IS New Chambers street, in which
no difficulty commenced. lie testified thai the
prisoner ant deceased were in The saloon drink
ing, that angry words passed between them, that
Murphy called the deceased mar " ana tnereupon
CahiI struck HIM, n;.er when br scS put them buth
iut0 the street, whctn the isht renewed; that
Murphy picked up Orck. flung u at the decsasd and
struck him on the head ractarlng his skull and caus.
instant deain. Uther Witnesses were called
whose testimony corroDvratiye IN ITS character.
Deputy Coroner McWhi1nie, who made the p0st-uor-
tom examination, gave IL HIS opinion that thc cause
Of death was compensation oI the braln due TO the
fracture Of the skull. the result Of vioence BAR.
~ Ipu fnr Inc ne
act was done in sei-deaence, Tue deceased
having assaulted the PRISONER, who, being
apprenensive that II was the intention oil
Cunill 10 do hlm some great bouiiy narm,
the injuries that caused death The prisouer
IN bIs own behalf testified that the deceased knocked
him Ia the saloon that he managed 10 get INTO
ths street, that he pursued by the deceased ana
that ind Ing escape Impossible, he fecd MN 70 the
ground with BRICK. mo prisoner dIsclaiineu any
Intention oil kuling wnicn he said was acc-
dental. several Witnesses VINO testified as 70
the good character the prisoner had borne