National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-01-11
GIRO'S TESTIMONY.
THE COURT DECIDES TO ADMIT 1T.
Er. divers Motion to Suppress the Deposition
0verruled-The Hearing Before Justice Cox
in tie Equity Court-Testimony For.
warded by Express c. o. d.

| Narded by Express Z. u. u.
The curtain was lifted yesterday upon another
scene in the divorce suit of ex-senator l. F. Chris
tiancy against his wife Lille Christiancy, noe
Lugenbeel. There was quite large attendance OF
spectators i'll Justice Coxs court to witness the pro-
ceedings, but those expecting developments Of q
sensational character must have been greatly dis
| appointed.
! Mr.. John E. Oliver appeared for Mrs. Christiancy
and Congressman Willis and Messrs. E. C. Inger,
soil and F. P. Cuppy for the ex-senator. The mat.
ter for the consideration of the court motion
made by the counsel for the defendant to sup
press deposition of Edilberto Giro, taken before
Horatio C. King, ESQ.,, in New York, an examiner
appointed by this court for reasons apparent upon
the face of said deposition"
4 MYSTERIOUS PACKAGE.
Mr.. Oliver stated that he noticed among the
| papers in the case paper parcel safely done up
| and sealed and directed to Mr.. X. j. Meigs, clerk
OF the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia,
Washington, D. c., and marked equity T2l5. He
| questioned whether CT not that was the proper
form in which TO transmit testimony taken by an
! examiner.
| Mr.. Ingersou said he could easily explain that
| matter and the manner in which the document
| had been sent. He had taken the responsibility
of directing the examiner to properly certify and
direct the cause in the regular form, and then to
| inclOSe ii in another package with plain wrap
per- direct it to the clerk OF the court and forward
| the same to its destination by Adams Express.
This done to avoid any notOriety in the case.
| He thought that if the package was opened it
would be found to be perfectly correct inside
the court, to break the seals and remove the wrap
! peTs, which that gentleman did with his usual
! skill and dexterity-
MR.. OLIVER PRESENTS HIS CASE.
| Mr. Oliver then proceeded to read the commits
sion issuedfrOm this court authorizing Horatlo VI.
King, of New York. to take the testimony of one
Edil Giro. Following this came notice from the
examiner TO Giro, ON the affidavit Of one IngersOn
Lockwood, associate counsel in the case for Mr..
ChriStiancy, that his testimony important to
| the cause Of the complainant, to appear, and he
subp1naed under section 916 OF the statutes of
New York State by judge of the court Of the city
Of New York.
Judge Cox. That point is, then, that this sub
pCena was issued by State court
Mr.. Oliver. By State court, not United States
court, as provided by the law of Congress.
Judge Cox. ] don't see as il makes any differ
ence how he has gotten before the examiner, so
they brought him there. Various means might
have been resOrted to, but the result would have
been the same if they succeeded III getting him
into the examiners presence.
Mr.. Oliver. certainly think that it makes some
difference how he was gotten before the examiner,
but that is not my principal point OF objection.
Mr.. Oliver then read portion of the testimony
Of Giro, showing that he at first positively refused
to answer as to whether he had had crimi-
nal relation with Mrs. ChriStiancy, on the ground
that he had right to decline and the honor of a
lady was involved: and that counsel for defendant
had objected to further questioning the witness OF
10 the examiners forcing the witness TO answer
more fully than he bad, despite which objections
the question was pressed and the witness compelled
to answer.
Mr. oliver then read from the statutes of the
United States to show that this testimony was not
taken in conformity with law. He said that the
examiner read TO the witness section $50 of the
statutes of New York State, which TO the effect
that if witness refused to testify before an ex-
aminer he was liable TO the penalties the as
if he refused to testify i'll Justices court lie sub
mi m iSSln IL IL
thority when he threatened the witness with i'm
prisonInent if he did not testify and his action
therefore unlawful.
In addition, he declared that the counsel on the
other side had misled the witness by stating that
adultery and fornication were not punishable by
any criminal prosecution in this District.
He then read an old Maryland law TO show that
fine Of E12 was imposed upon every one confess
ing or being found guilty Of adultery by verdict
Mr. IngersoI. That is no indictment.
Mr. Oliver. How could twelve men try man if
ne was not indicted?
Mr. Oliver maintained that the examiner in New
York had no more power than if he had been
deputized to take testimony in this city.
GIRO's ARREST.
Mr.. Oliver desired to make one further state
ment. The next morning after the examination he
said Giro came before the examiner with a state
ment i'll his own handwriting 10 the effect that he
had been arrested while crossing Broadway on the
tween the counsel (Mr. Oliver, his client Mrs. C.,
and DR. Blood TO iniure his reputation and affect
the strength of his testimony witness. In con-
sequence of this action Giro said that he withdrew
all former objections and to the giving of his test
mony as to having had criminal intercourse with
Mrs Christiancy, and wished to haveit appear that
he testified freely and willingly.
Mr.. Oliver wished to say that if there was no
truth in the rest ofGiros statement than that
he CMr. )pointed him out and secured his arrest,
He then explained how Giros identity became
known, and his arrest followed.
MR.. INGERsoLL's REPLY.
Mr.. Ingersoll. in reply said that only two points
were raised in the matter One was the suficiency
of the way the testimony was taken He thought
that section 915 of the New York Statutes set
tied that matter effectually. That court had desg
mated the commissioner to take the testimony, and
the sovereignty of the State of New York clothed
him with police power lit did not, then it would
be useless to bring witnesses before him to testify
The other point raised was the forcing of the wit
ness TO testify. He then read from section 91s of
the statutes of the State of New York giving power
to punish for contempt, and under what condi-
ct first refused to testify because the honor of
a lady was involved This was not regarded
sufficient cause, and be was so informed; and
further, that he would be punished for contempt
if he did not answer. He did then testify, bat
even if the examiner had not had the compulsory
power, the witness had obviated all that difficulty
by coming i'll the next day and expressing his en-
tire Willingness to allow his testimony to go if
voluntarily given.
TIE COURT DENIES TIE NOTION.
His nor thought that it did not make par
llclS Ol uiHeFGnce HOW Inc WltneSS Was taken De
fore the examiner so he was got there The next
point the forcing of the witness to testify He
did not see why commissioner should not avail
himself of any state law TO make witness testify
If there was any question involved in the case as
TO his authority, it was for the witness 10
discover and resist, and not for the counsel
in the case to take advantage of after
ward. If the witness did not decline
10 answer, and then, if committed for contempt,
take advantage the habcas corpus, certainly the
parties to the suit could not profit by his negli-
gence lie did not think either reason offered
sufficient grounds for suppressing the testimony,
and therefore overruled the motion. Mr.. Oliver
stated that he would carry it to the general term
This closed the scene, the curtain rung down.
nd the aIlLliercG GIlintlI Gnr,artna