Q. Were any charges made against you by any house there? By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. I understand you to say that your acquaintance with Dr. McMillan was principally when you were in college. I do not understand that there was any intimacy or relation of friendship between you after you left college. A. Nothing very strong afterwards. He went one way and I went the other, and it was only when I found him at Lennoxville that I became aware of the fact that he had gone out there to practice. We are neither friends nor enemies. Q. Being a friend of yours, you were surprised at his betraying Surratt? A. Generally among young men attending the same college there is supposed to be more or less intimacy, and it was on that account I was surprised to find that two Canadians should have been the parties to trace up the prisoner. Q. The counsel has asked you with regard to McMillan's character. I ask you now as to any facts within your knowledge touching his moral character. (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont as testimony could only be given as to the general character of the party for truth and veracity. Objection sustained.) By Mr. MERRICK: Q. I understood you to say that if you were interested you would have great doubts in regard to believing McMillan on oath. WITNESS. I will explain what I mean: From what I know of him, not personally but from hearsay in that locality, if I had a lawsuit wherein I wanted a witness, I would not certainly take his oath. Q. If you were a juryman would you take his oath ? Mr. BRADLEY stated that he proposed to introduce three witnesses who spoke only the French language. One of them knew something of English and could no doubt understand the questions as put to him in that language, but he found great difficulty in so expressing himself in English as to make his meaning intelligible. He was a French advocate, and in the section from which he came all the pleadings and records were kept in French. With regard to the other two, one spoke English some little, but very little; the other not at all. He would therefore ask to have Colonel James R O'Beirne sworn as interpreter. The COURT said of course if the witnesses alluded to were unable to under. stand the questions put to them in English, or unable to respond in that tongue, it would be desirable to have an interpreter. As he supposed there would be no objection to Colonel O'Beirne acting in that capacity, he could be sworn. LOUIS W. SICOTTE was then sworn as a witness, and Colonel James R. O'Beirne as interpreter. Before the examination had been entered upon, the district attorney said that he understood this witness could speak English very well comparatively, and therefore he objected to having his testimony given through an interpreter until it was discovered by the court that it would be impossible to conduct the examination in English. The COURT said the examination might be proceeded with in English, and then, if it appeared an interpreter was necessary, Colonel O'Beirne could be called upon. The examination was then proceeded with in English as follows: By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. State, if you please, where you reside. A. In Montreal, Canada. Q. What is your profession? A. Advocate. I am at present employed in the Crown's law department. Q. How long have you resided in Montreal? A. Since 1858. Q. While residing there, did you know St. Marie, who has been examined as a witness in this case? A. I did not meet him in 1858; but I have seen him since 1859, and from then up to 1862. Perhaps I may have met him before, but I did not notice him at all. From 1860 to 1862 he was employed in the educational office. Q. Had you an opportunity during that time to know what was said of him among those with whom he associated, as to his truth and veracity? A. Yes, sir. Q Was his general character for truth and veracity good or bad? Q. From that general character-from what was said of him by people with whom he associated-would you believe him on his oath? A. No, sir. Cross-examined by Mr. PIERREPONT: Q. Did you ever talk with St. Marie? A. I spoke to him once or twice. I have never been well acquainted with him. I met him one day in Montreal when he was there. Q. When was the first time you ever met St. Marie to know him? A. I saw him when he was a law student; he was at the same time employed in the education office. Q. Did you talk with him then? A. Only on business. Q. Did you talk with him on business? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you next see him? A. Since 1859, and up to 1862, I saw him sometimes, but not very frequently. Q. Have you seen him often since that time? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see him often between 1859 and 1862 ? A. I met him one day on the street. I was not acquainted with him. I spoke to him one day on business. Q. You had business with him once? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you associate with his friends and acquaintances? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you intimate with the same persons with whom he was intimate? A. Yes, sir. I will explain if you will let me. Mr. PIERREPONT. Go on. WITNESS. I had occasion last winter to live in La Pierre. He is a native of that place. There I met many persons who knew him perfectly well since his birth, and I heard those persons speak of him in such a way Q. At this time, had you heard that he had betrayed Surratt in Rome? A. No, sir. I began to work in Lapierre in the month of November, and the arrest of Surratt was not till some time after. I heard many persons speak of St. Marie in the way I referred to. Q. After the arrest of Surratt in Rome, did you hear anything about it? Q. Did you know the fact that Surratt was arrested in Rome on the information given by St. Marie? A. Certainly. Q. Did you know that he escaped there from the guards at the time of this conversation? A. The only thing I did know then was that St. Marie made the deposition against Surratt, and that Surratt was arrested. Q. You heard that? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was much discussed, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Many of those people with whom you moved thought that it was not right, didn't they, for St. Marie to betray Surratt in Rome? A. There were some people speaking in that way, but they were discussing him generally. By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. I understand you to say that the conversation to which you first referred was in November, before you heard of the arrest of Surratt ? A. O, certainly; the first conversation I heard regarding St. Marie was when he left the education office; but I heard the conversation in his own native land in November, and up to the time of his arrest. Q. November of what year? A. Last November. Q. After you had heard of the arrest of Surratt you heard it still more spoken of? A. Certainly; a little more. Q. Now, as far back as 1862, when he left the educational office, was or not his character very well spoken of? A. It was publicly known that he left the country for the reason I have mentioned. By Mr. PIERREPONT: Q. Did you know of St. Marie studying for the ministry in your churchfor the priesthood? A. I did not know that. Q. You belong to the Roman Catholic church? A. Yes, sir. Q. Didn't you hear of it among the people up there that he was studying for the priesthood? A. No, sir. Q. Didn't you know he was sent down here as a teacher in the church? A. I did not hear anything of that. Q. Didn't you hear that discussed when you heard him discussed? A. No, sir. Q. Did you hear why he came into the United States ? (This question was answered by the witness, but the court subsequently directed the answer to be stricken out, as not being responsive to anything brought out on cross-examination. Mr. Merrick insisted that the answer was properly in, as the counsel for the prosecution had failed to object at the proper time. Mr. Pierrepont stated their attention was otherwise taken up at the moment, and, therefore, they did not hear the answer when given, or they certainly would have objected.) By Mr. PIERREPONT: Q. Did you hear yourself that St. Marie had betrayed Surratt in Rome? A. Yes, sir; I saw it in the papers Q. Did that affect your feelings any towards him? A. No, sir; not at all. Q. You thought it was right? A. I thought it was right that he had made a deposition. A. O, no; I did not give any opinion on the matter then. Q. Did the fact of which you have spoken excite any unpleasant feelings towards St. Marie? A. I had no feelings at all against St. Marie. QI ask you if his betraying Surratt in Rome excited in you any feelings against St. Marie? A. I tell you I did not express any feeling. what you felt? A. I felt that it was The subsequent portion of the witness's answer was given in French. Mr. Pierrepont insisted on having it in English. Mr. Bradley said it was evident the witness could not properly express himself in English, and he thought it highly proper that, with regard to this one answer at least, he should be allowed to speak through an interpreter. Mr PIERREPONT contended that, as the examination in chief had been conducted in English, he was entitled to have the witness respond in that tongue to such questions as he should put to him on cross-examination. If the question were so shaped as to be unintelligible to the witness, he would endeavor to so frame it that there should be no difficulty of that kind. The question being repeated to the witness, he said: I have no feeling against St. Marie. Q. Did you, at any time, say anything against St. Marie connected with his betrayal of Surratt? A. Yes, sir. I said only a few words, however. By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. Now state what you did say about St. Marie when you heard of the betrayal ? A. I cannot properly express in English and will state it in French. Witness then gave the answer in French, which was interpreted by Colonel O'Beirne as follows: When I heard that St. Marie had made the deposition against Surratt, I said to the curate and others, that it was mean or unprincipled in him to have made that deposition." LUDGAR LABELLE sworn and examined: Q. Are you in any public position? A. Since four years past I have been city counsellor for Montreal. Q. How long have you resided in Montreal? A. I have always resided in Montreal. I was born there. Q. Did you know in Montreal a man named H. B. St. Marie, who has been examined as a witness in this case? Q. During what years, as well as you can recollect? A. As well as I can recollect, I made his acquaintance in 1858 or 1859. I am not quite sure which. Q. He continued to reside there how long after that? A. Almost three years after I formed his acquaintance-until 1862. Q. During that time do you remember whether he had any employment or A. Yes, sir. He was employed from October, 1860, to August, 1862, in the education office in Montreal. Q. State whether during that time you had opportunities to know the persons with whom he associated. A. Perfectly. I have known him personally and very particularly. I was at the time editor of a small paper, next to the education office, and I had opportunities of seeing him nearly three or four times a week. Q. During that time had you opportunities to learn and know his general character among those with whom he associated for truth and veracity? A. O, yes, sir; perfectly well. A. In the beginning his character was not known as a bad one. I mean in 1858-'59. A. Yes, sir. But when he was employed in the education office- Mr. PIERREPONT. We do not want that. The COURT. Speak of his general reputation for truth and veracity-that is, what other people say about him as being a man who will tell the truth, or who will tell a lie. WITNESS. His character had become bad while he was in the education office. The DISTRICT ATTORNEY. For truth? Q. Among those with whom he associated? A. Yes, sir; among the citizens of Montreal generally. Q. State whether, from what people generally say of him, you would believe him on his oath? A. No, sir; I could not believe him on his oath from his general character, and from his acts. Cross-examined by Mr. PIERREPONT: Q. You knew him intimately, did you? A. Not intimately; but I had before many occasions to see him. I was not his friend. I do not like to pass for having been his friend. Q. What did you mean then by saying that you knew him intimately? A. Not intimately. I have not used that word. Q. What have you said? A. That I had known him personally, and that I had had many occasions to see him, but I did not know him intimately. Q. Was his character good then? A. I could not say anything against him. Mr. PIERREPONT. I mean for truth and veracity. WITNESS. I understand you. I could not say anything against him during that time, for I had just commenced to know him. |