Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. PIERREPONT said he did not object to the defence showing when the prisoner arrived in Richmond, or when he left Richmond.

The COURT remarked that the evidence offered did not seem to him to be relevant.

Mr. BRADLEY remarked that the prosecution had introduced the statement of Dr. McMillan, of the prisoner's declaration in reference to his going to Richmond. The COURT said it would be proper to introduce evidence to contradict those declarations, by parties present at the time the declarations were made, or to give the entire declarations in evidence if only a part had been given, but that they could not be met by the declarations made at other times and places, and the acts of the prisoner stood on the same ground precisely, in that respect, as his declarations.

Mr. PIERREPONT hoped the court would rule upon these questions as they came up. The question now was, whether the witness should be allowed to state his opinion of the handwriting of a certain entry in this Spottswood House register.

The COURT decided that the evidence could not be admitted. No testimony had been presented in reference to this book. So far as any evidence was concerned the book might have been picked up in the street. Counsel brought a piece of paper with the name written on it, and asked witness to state in whose handwriting it was.

Mr. MERRICK remarked that it was then merely a question of the order of proof, and that, conforming to the ruling of the court, he should proceed to introduce evidence identifying this register.

Mr. PIERREPONT said before this witness left the stand he proposed to ask him a question with reference to the register of the Webster House.

Q. You say you find the name entered there about which you have testified. Tell the jury under what dates that entry is.

Mr. BRADLEY remarked that if that register was before the jury it was very well, but if not it was evidence for the court. Witness could not tell the jury anything.

Mr. PIERREPONT (to witness.) You need not tell the jury anything. You may point out the entry to the court, and answer the question in a tone the jury cannot hear.

WITNESS turned to the court and made an explanation of the entry referred to. Mr. BRADLEY. I now want to hear what has passed between the witness and

court.

The COURT said there was nothing whatever upon which any cross-examination could take place, in relation to this register. If the register should go before the jury the witness could then be examined in regard to dates. The witness had simply stated to him that there were no lines drawn between the dates of the 15th and 17th of April.

J. B. TINSLEY, jr., sworn and examined.

By Mr. BRADLEY:

Q. Where were you employed in March, 1865?

A. At the Spottswood Hotel, in Richmond.

Q. State whether that is the register before you of the Spottswood Hotel for that year.

A. Yes, sir; it is.

Q. Have you any other books of the hotel with you?

A. Yes, sir.

(Other books brought and laid before the witness.)

Q. Look at the name of Henry Sherman on that register, and state, if you

can from that or memory, whether he was at the Spottswood House on the 29th of March, 1865.

A. Yes, sir; he was.

Q. Do you recollect the fact of his being there?

A. I do not recollect the individual. I know the party who registered that name did stop in the house.

Q. Now turn and state how long he staid there.

A. He came on the 29th of March to supper, and left the 1st of April after breakfast. He left the hotel at that time.

Q. Would you be able to recognize the party if you were to see him?
A. No, sir; I think not.

DAVID H. BATES, recalled and examined.

By Mr. BRADLEY:

Q. I now ask you to look at the handwriting shown you, (name of "Harry Sherman," on register of Spottswood House, Richmond, March 29, 1865,) and state in whose handwriting it is.

A. I believe the signature to have been written by Surratt.

Q. By John H. Surratt, the prisoner, you mean?

A. Yes, sir; John H. Surratt.

HENRY HALL BROGDEN, Sworn and examined.

By Mr. BRADLEY:

Q. Where were you employed for the months of March and April, 1865?

A. In Richmond, up to the 2d of April.

Q. Were you there from the 29th of March till the 2d of April?

[blocks in formation]

Q. Under what name did he pass ?

A. He passed there under the name of Sherman.

Q. You knew who he was?

A. I knew who he was. That was the name he passed under there.

Q. State whether you were with him and saw Mr. Benjamin, the secretary of

state.

(Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont as having no relevancy to this case, it not being to contradict anything offered in proof on the part of the prosecution. Objection sustained by the court. It was of no consequence what interview the prisoner might have had with Mr. Benjamin. He might have preached a sermon in Richmond three times in a day and not affect any matter involved in this question.)

Q. Were you with him at the time he left there for Canada, in April? (Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont for the same reason as last. Objection sustained by the court, and exception to ruling noted.)

Q. Do you know how he was occupied while he was there?

(Question objected to, and objection sustained.)

Q. Do you know when he left?

A. I know when I last saw him.

Q. State when you last saw him.

A. I last saw him on the evening of Friday the last day of March, 1865. Q. You did not see him when he left?

A. I did not see him when he left.

DAVID H. BATES recalled and examined.

[ocr errors]

By Mr. BRADLEY:

Q. You will find the name of R. N. Jones entered next to that of "J. Harrison, on the 15th of April, on the book before you, (register of Webster House, Canandaigua, New York,) and some pages further forward you will find the same name entered, R. N. Jones. State whether they are in the same handwriting.

(Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont. The entry of the name of Jones had nothing to do with this case.

Mr. BRADLEY said the object was to lay a foundation to prove the register. Objection overruled.)

A. I believe these two entries of the name of R. N. Jones to be in the same handwriting.

FRANCIS P. BURKE, sworn and examined.

By Mr. MERRICK :

Q. What business were you in, in April, 1865?

A. I was the coachman of President Lincoln.

Q. Did you drive his carriage to the theatre on the night of the assassination? A. Yes, sir.

Q. After the President left the carriage, tell the jury whether or not you remained immediately in front of the planking placed there for parties to get

out on.

A. I drove a distance of about ten or fifteen paces up towards F street.
Q. Ten or fifteen paces away from that platform?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then, the rear of your carriage was ten or fifteen paces from the nearest part of the platform?

A. I think so; it projected about ten yards I should say, to the best of my knowledge, from where the carriage stood.

Q. You drove far enough forward to allow other carriages to come in front of the platform?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you on the box most of the time that night?

A. I was all the time that night, with the exception that two of my friends

whom I knew asked me to go in and take a glass of ale with them.

man in charge of the carriage until I returned.

Q. At what time did you go iu and take a glass of ale?

A. I think after the first act was over.

Q. How long did you remain taking that glass of ale?

A. I suppose about five or ten minutes.

Q. And then returned to the carriage?

A. I then returned to the carriage and went on to the box.

Q. Did you remain there?

A. Yes, sir.

I left a

Q. I understand you to say you remained all the time on the box, with the exception of these five or ten minutes?

A. I remained after the carriage first came.

Q. Did you observe anybody coming round your carriage and peeping into it? A. No; I took no notice. They may have passed by. I saw no one looking into the carriage. I did not see anybody.

Q. Did you hear any body about the theatre calling the time that night?

A. No, sir; I did not. In fact I did not pay much attention. I felt tired. I was rather drowsy, and leaning back with my elbow resting on the carriage.

I had been out all day. I could not say that I saw anybody that I paid any attention to.

[blocks in formation]

Q. Did you see anybody sitting on the plank platform while you were there? A. No, sir. I did not notice.

Q. Did you see any soldiers sitting there for half an hour?

A. No, sir. I could not say I saw any soldiers.

Cross-examined by Mr. PIERREPONT:

Q. You were sitting on your carriage which had gone on past the platform, were you not?

A. Yes, sir. It had gone past ten or fifteen feet.

Q. And any one in your rear you would not have seen?

A. I would not have seen him. I had my head turned towards my horses. HENRY H. BROGDEN, recalled.

Mr. BRADLEY said he proposed to ask Mr. Brogden what passed in reference to the payment of any money to Surratt by Mr. Benjamin-how much money and what description of money. The witness, Weichmann, had given in evidence that the prisoner had in his possession ten or eleven gold pieces when he returned from Richmond.

Mr. PIERREPONT said the evidence, of course, was not admissable. Weichmann did not say the prisoner got it from Mr. Benjamin.

Mr. BRADLEY said he proposed to put questions in due form, and they could be ruled out as they were asked.

Q. I now ask you whether while you were in Mr. Benjamin's office on the day you saw the prisoner there, there was any transaction between him and Mr. Benjamin, in which money was paid by Mr. Benjamin to him? If so, state how much was paid, and for what purpose, and in what form of money. (Question objected to by Mr. Pierrepont. Objection sustained.)

Q. I then ask whether you saw Mr. Benjamin pay prisoner ten $20 gold pieces on the 31st of March, 1865?

(Question objected to. Objection sustained.)

Q. My next question is whether you know for what purpose that money was paid to the prisoner?

(Question objected to. Objection sustained. Exception reserved to ruling in respect to this and the two preceding questions.)

Mr. MERRICK proposed to offer in evidence an affidavit made in Liverpool by the witness McMillan, a printed copy of which was furnished by the counsel for the prosecution, to be considered as the original.

Mr. PIERREPONT objected to the introduction of the affidavit on the ground that the witness McMillan was not shown the affidavit.

Mr. MERRICK said he was asked in reference to it, and his attention called to it. Objection sustained, and exception to ruling noted.

STEPHEN F. CAMERON, sworn and examined.

By Mr. MERRICK:

Q. State to the jury in what service you were engaged during the late war. A. I was engaged in the confederate service.

Q. Did you cross the ocean in company with Lewis J. McMillan ?

A. With Surgeon or Doctor McMillan; yes.

Q. The one who was examined here as a witness.

A. The same; I recognize him now in court.

Q. In what boat did you cross?

A. In the steamer Nova Scotia.

Q. From what place?

A. From Quebec.

Q. To Liverpool?

A. To Liverpool-stopping at Londonderry.

Q. Did you have any conversation with him on that voyage?

A. I did; immediately after I formed his acquaintance.

Q. Did he state to you anything of his conversation with John Surratt, in which Surratt told him he was in Elmira the 14th of April, and only learned the morning succeeding that the President had been assassinated?

A. He did.

Q. Did he ever state to you that Surratt told him that he was in Elmira; that he went from there to some town, the name of which he could not recollect, but which had an Indian derivation?

A. He so stated. I tried to recollect the town by repeating all the names of towns in New York having an Indian derivation I could think of; but he could not recollect it, nor could I.

Q. Did he further state that Surratt first learned of the assassination of President Lincoln at the city of Elmira, and that he immediately turned his face towards Canada?

A. Yes; he assigned that as the reason.

Q. Did he ever state to you in any conversation on board that boat, or elsewhere, that he was on intimate relations with Surratt on shipboard; that Surratt could not have been guilty of participation in the assassination; that he really regarded him as a victim?

A. He did, in answer to my question, whether he was in favor of compromising himself as an officer of the line of steamers, by furnishing shelter and affording facilities to such a man for leaving the country.

Q. Did he ever state to you that Surratt told him that the plan for the ab duction of Mr. Lincoln was the individual enterprise of Booth, and that he furnished $4,000 or $6,000 for that purpose?

A. He so stated, and mentioned those sums specifically.

Q. Did he state that the whole plan was laid by Booth ?

A. Yes; by "that reckless man, Booth," I think was the expression; and that he always regarded it as the individual enterprise of that man.

A. At what time was it that you had these conversations with him? do you recollect the date?

A. Not without reference to my diary. (Diary consulted by witness.) It was on Monday, the 30th of October; I left on the 28th.

Q. Did he ever say to you at that time, or after the 26th of September, 1865, that he had never communicated his conversation with Surratt to any one else? A. He stated so, emphatically. I made a very earnest appeal to him not to state what he had mentioned in that conversation in regard to Father LaPierre. He stated that he was his early schoolmate, and that he had not repeated it to any one else; he told me so, positively and solemnly, and he cannot deny it. Q. Did he tell you that Surratt did not know of his mother's position until about the day of her execution?

A. He did; he defended John Surratt when I assailed him on that point.
Q. You state, distinctly, that he said he had not repeated that conversation?
A. Yes, sir; I had written to Father LaPierre on the subject.

Cross-examined by Mr. PIERREPONT:

Q. Dr. McMillan, the gentleman sitting by the district attorney, is the person you refer to?

A. That is the individual.

Q. When was the first time you ever saw him?

A. On the steamer.

« AnteriorContinuar »