A. It is on the south side of Pennsylvania avenue, between Ninth and Tenth

streets.

Q. Were you in Teutonia Hall at any time along about the middle of April? A. I was sometimes.

Q. Tell us what kind of tables they had.

A. I could not tell that. They had some round and some corner tables.
Q. Do you know whether they had dancing there?

A. They had a rehearsal there.

Q. Won't you tell us what time of day they had the rehearsal ?

Mr. BRADLEY. On the 14th of April.

WITNESS. I do not know when they had a rehearsal. Their rehearsal was before the exhibition; generally in the morning.

By Mr. BRADLEY:

Q. Did you ever know them to have a public performance in Teutonia Hall on a Friday in the daytime?

A. No, sir; I do not know anything about their business. I went there sometimes and had a glass of beer.

Mrs. ANNIE BACHUS sworn and examined.

By Mr. BRADLEY:

Q. State, if you please, where you lived in April, 1865.

A. 318 D street, between Tenth and Eleventh.

Q. At Winter Garden?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember the day of the President's assassination?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. State if there was any performance during the day-any exhibition, dancing or music.

A. No, sir; not in the daytime.

Cross-examined by Mr. PIERREPONT:

Q. What time did it begin in the evening?

A. At 8 o'clock.

Q Did they have any rehearsals before they began ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At what time of day?

A. When we had rehearsals it was between 10 and 1 o'clock.

Q. What kind of tables had you in the hall?

A. Round tables.

Justice A. B. OLIN, heretofore sworn in the case, took the stand for the purpose of making an explanatory statement. He said:

I would like, if the parties will permit me, to make an explanation of what was testified to by me a few days ago. When I had concluded my testimony on that occasion the counsel for the prisoner kindly handed me what purported to be a report of the testimony given by me before the military commission at the arsenal, when Mrs. Surratt and others were tried. The testimony, as reported in the printed volume, which I had never seen before, is to the effect that I did not discover on the floor the remains of the plaster cut from the hole in the wall, in which the brace was fitted to close the door, nor the shavings from what I supposed to be the gimlet hole bored into the door of the box. On the other day, as the jury will probably remember, I testified that, according to my recollection, I did discover this plaster and these shavings. I have no means of knowing whether the report that is produced here of the

testimony that I gave before the military commission is an accurate report or not. All I can say with reference to it is, that if I were called upon to testify to-day again, after some reflection on the subject, I would testify as I did a few days ago, and yet I ought to say, perhaps, that after such a lapse of time as has occurred between the transaction and the present hour, if what was shown me be a correct report of my testimony before the military commission, it is more likely to be accurate than testimony recently given by me, because all the circumstances were then fresh in my recollection, and the transaction was a recent one. After this lapse of time it is quite possible that I may be mistaken in reference to that fact, as to whether I saw the plaster on the floor, cut from the hole in the wall, or the shavings that were cut by a penknife from what was apparently a gimlet hole through the door. That is all I can say in reference to the matter. The counsel for the prisoner forebore to cross-examine me upon that subject, and I thought it due to the case, as I am about to leave town this afternoon, to make this statement in reference to it. My recollection at present is such that if I were called upon to-day I would testify that I saw that which I testified to the other day, and yet, as I before observed, it is quite possible that I may be mistaken in reference to it.

By Mr, PIERREPONT:

Q. Will you state whether you saw the shavings that you testified to the other day, and the mortar at the same time?

A. I never saw either, unless I saw it that Sunday morning.

Q. Is your recollection now the same as it was the other day when you testified?

A. I should say so.

By Mr. BRADLEY:

Q. If I understand, you were examined about twelve days after you made that examination?

A. I do not recollect; it was soon after, when all the facts and circumstances were fresh in my memory.

Q. Didn't you take notes of the examination of other persons?

A. Yes, sir; I took most of the preliminary examinations until the War department took charge of the matter.

Mr. BRADLEY stated that Pitman's official report was shown to Judge Olin the other day, and that he would now hand him the literal report as made by Mr. Sutton, which was undoubtedly correct

Judge OLIN, after examining the report handed him, remarked it was substantially the same as the other, and then added:

Some of the circumstances attending that examination are indelibly impressed upon my mind; for instance, the fact that it was reported that probably the ball was fired through the door. Having heard that report before I made the examination, I took particular pains to ascertain how it was. I recollect now very distinctly the fact that the small hole bored in the door had been cleaned out by a sharp cutting instrument, and yet, in reference to the question as to whether I saw the plaster and the chips, it is quite possible that I am mistaken as to what I testified to the other day. I would be more likely to recollect distinctly the fact so recently after the occurrence than I would be after this lapse of time.

By Mr. PIERREPONT:

Q. As you reproduce the scene, you say you have a distinct memory about examining that hole?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is your present belief about finding the shavings or chips?

A. That is my belief-that I found them.

Q. And so with regard to the mortar?

A. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY. When a thing is fresh upon the mind

Judge OLIN. Of course you know very well that an honest man would be more likely to remember a transaction that occurred a short time before, than he would after the lapse of years. That is all I can say about it.

Mr. PIERREPONT. Wouldn't it depend a great deal on the way his mind was called to the circumstances, whether it was made to be a circumstance of importance?

Judge OLIN. Doubtless so.

Mr. BRADLEY. Didn't you say that it was a circumstance of importance that you were inquiring into?

Judge OLIN. The important circumstances in my mind were, perhaps, these: First, the fact that the door was braced or prepared for a brace; and second, the question as to whether the bullet was fired through the door, or whether some other contrivance was resorted to to effect an entrance into the box of the theatre.

The court here took a recess until to-morrow (Tuesday) morning at 10 o'clock

The court met at ten o'clock a. m.

FRANK O. CHAMBERLIN recalled and examined.

By Mr. BRADLEY:

TUESDAY, July 16, 1867.

Q. I understand that you took possession of the Webster House on the 17th of April, 1865.

A. I was not in full possession; I commenced invoicing there.

Q. You took possession of that book (register) at that time?

A. I commenced invoicing the furniture, &c. I did not take full possession until the 22d.

Q. During that time until the 1st of January, 1866, where was that register? A. It lay on the office counter.

Q. It was in daily use until that time?

A. It was until and including the 31st of December, 1865.

Q. It could not, therefore, have been put out of the way without your knowing it?

A. I do not think it could.

Q. It was in constant, daily use?

A. It was.

Mr. BRADLEY said he understood the witness to testify to these facts on his former examination, but as there seemed to be a misunderstanding about it, he had recalled him for that purpose.

Mr. PIERREPONT said he understood the same facts, except as to the precise

date.

Q. Can you state at what time the first train from Albany arrived at Canandaigua, the middle of the month of April, 1865; say the 14th, 15th, or 16th? A. They have arrived the last two years at about 10 o'clock; they now arrive at 10.30 a. m. That has been the usual time for the last two years. Q. I refer to the train that leaves Albany in the morning.

A. That arrives at about the same time in the evening, about 10 or 11 o'clock.

Q. How long did it take that train to run through?

A. I should think about eleven or twelve hours. There were three trains a day each way; one arrived at 10.30 in the morning, another at 4 55 in the afternoon, and the third at 10.30 at night.

Q. Have you taken this middle train which arrives at 4.55 repeatedly?

A. Not very often; I know of its arrival.

Q. Can you state whether it does not leave Albany at about 6.50 in the morning?

A. I do not know the leaving time.

Q. The three trains arrive in Canandaigua from New York at 10.30, 455, and 10.30 respectively, and did at that time.

A. I think they did; that has been the usual time for the last two or three years since I have been there.

Q. Do you know at what time the train arriving at 10.30 left Albany; did it leave at midnight?

A. I could not tell what the leaving time is, it is about 222 or 223 miles. Q. Is that a train by Syracuse?

Cross-examined by Mr. PIERREPONT:

Q. Look in your register, May, 1866-7, under date of 13th of May, 1867. (Register shown winess)

WITNESS. I have that date.

Mr. PIERREPONT said he stated now, that there might be no misunderstanding as to his intention, that he offered this evidence to show that Mr. Bradley, jr., himself entered his name under the wrong date. He did it for the purpose of showing how such errors might occur. He would show that there was an error

of three months.

Mr. MERRICK asked if that register was before the jury.

Mr. PIERREPONT replied in the negative, but said the defence had given evidence that Mr. Bradley went there, and his object was now to show that there was an error of three months in entering his name on that register. It was merely to show how such errors might occur.

Mr. BRADLEY said he could not imagine under what rule such evidence could be admissible.

Mr. PIERREPONT said the object was to show the impropriety of introducing the register at all, to prove anything as to a person being at a hotel at a particular time.

Mr. MERRICK remarked that the counsel seemed to show a proper appreciation of the principle upon which this question ought to turn, that the register ought to go before the jury, leaving the question of its accuracy or inaccuracy for them to determine.

Mr. PIERREPONT said the very object of asking this question was to show that it ought not to go to the jury; that it proved nothing whatever.

Mr. BRADLEY said he thought this evidence had been introduced for another purpose; that it was for an ulterior purpose having no reference to this case at all; that it was for the purpose of discrediting the evidence of one of the counsel who had been examined, and who was now away from the court, sick. Mr. PIERREPONT said he thought he understood his own purpose, and that it was simply what he had stated. He had not noticed that Mr. Bradley, jr., was not here, and would therefore waive his question for the present.

The COURT said the evidence was inadmissible at any rate; that the register had been ruled out.

Mr. MERRICK desired to show that there is no error in the register; that Mr. Bradley was actually at the hotel at the time his name was registered.

The COURT said the register of 1865 had been rejected, and if the purpose was to introduce this register, it would also be ruled out. If it was the intention of counsel to make another effort to introduce the register of 1865 in evi

dence, it would be as well to allow any question in reference to this to remain until that should be disposed of.

Mr. PIERREPONT said he had withdrawn his question in regard to it, but desired to ask the witness one or two questions upon another point.

Q. When did you arrive at the Webster House?

A. I was there on Monday, the 17th of April, I think.

Q. Can you tell whether there was anybody dead there at that time, or who died there?

(Question objected to and objection sustained.)

Mr. JOSEPH H. BRADLEY, jr., here came into court and made the following

statement:

If the court pleases, my attention has been called to an error in my statement in reference to the time when I was at Canandaigua. The error arose in this way: I went to New York for the purpose of obtaining letters of introduction to Mr. Robinson's father. These letters I did not obtain at that time, but they followed me back to Washington. That was in March. On my second trip to New York, for the purposes of this case, I went by way of New York, and from thence by the Erie road, reaching Canandaigua on the 13th of May, going through Elmira and seeing Mr. Robinson's father. On my return trip I arrived there, it appears, on the 22d of May, which corresponds with the entry in that book. The error occurred by confounding my first visit to New York with the one when I proceeded on to Canandaigua. On both these visits I saw this register and made an examination, as I testified to.

DAVID H. BATES recalled and examined.

By Mr. BRADLEY :

Q. Look on the left-hand page of the book now before you (register of the Webster House, Canandaigua, 1865,) and tell me in whose handwriting the entry of the name of John Harrison is made.

A. I believe the name of John Harrison, here entered, to be in the handwriting of John H. Surratt.

Q. Now look at this other register shown you, (register of the Spottswood House, Richmond, Virginia, 1865,) and say in whose handwriting the name of Harry Sherman there is.

Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont on the ground that no evidence had been produced with regard to the Spottswood House register.

Mr. BRADLEY said his purpose was to prove that this name written on the 29th of March, 1865, was in the handwriting of John H. Surratt. The government had traced him to Port Tobacco, and left him there on the 25th, with the avowed purpose of going to Richmond. His purpose was to prove that he went to Richmond, arriving there on the 29th, and that he returned, arriving in Washington on the 3d of April, when it had been proved by the prosecution he was here, and leaving here on the 4th arrived in Montreal on the 6th. He expected to account for him during all the time when the government had failed to account for him. One of the pretences upon which the prisoner's connection with this conspiracy rested was that his visit to Richmond was connected with the conspiracy-that he took money to Jacob Thompson, in Canada, and in order to connect him with it they brought Jacob Thompson into the conspiracy. His, (Mr. B.'s) purpose was to show when the prisoner went to Richmond how long he staid there; what he got there; how he came to go from Richmond to Montreal, and thus account for him, showing his occupation the whole time in an employment utterly inconsistent and irreconcilable, so far as the testimony is concerned, with any active co-operation in the alleged conspiracy. He could not conceive upon what rule the government were allowed to take him to the Potomac river on his way to Richmond and the defence not permitted to show where he went and what was his purpose.