A. I cannot say about that time exactly, but his character came to be considered as bad during the time he was employed in the education office. Q. When? A. In 1860; from 1860 to 1862. Q. When did his character for truth become bad? A. From 1860 to 1862. Q. Have you seen him since? A. Yes, sir; he came to Montreal for two or three days, and I saw him on the street. Q. Did you know of his making a deposition in Rome by which Surratt was arrested? you talk about that? A. Well, I talked about that as other persons have. Q. Did you express yourself as against that-against St. Marie informing on Surratt in Rome? A. I have no feeling against St. Marie. Q. I asked you if you had expressed yourself on that subject? A. I have given my opinion on the fact. Q. Did you express any feeling on the subject? A. I have answered that. Q. Did you express any feeling against St. Marie on that account? A. I have said that St. Marie, under the circumstances, was a low man to have done such a thing in consideration of a remuneration. Q. Was that all you said? A. Yes, sir. Q. You felt so? A. Yes, sir; that is my opinion about it. Q. And you did not feel very kindly towards him on account of it, did you? You felt hostile towards him for doing that mean thing? A. Not very hostile; I did not care for that man; I did not like to come in contact with him at all. I Q. You thought it was a wrong act, didn't you? A. Not the act itself; I do not say that the act itself was a wrong act; but say that it was low to do such a thing for the consideration of money. Q. And you do not think that any one but a low man would tell on Surratt in Rome? (No response.) Q. Was your feeling that none but a low man would inform, as St. Marie informed, on Surratt? A. No, no. Mr. BRADLEY. That is hardly a fair question. By the DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Q. Will you state the first time that you ever heard St. Marie's reputation for truth discussed by any persons in Montreal? A. The first time was some months before he entered into the education office. I had heard in public that he had been obliged to leave the People's Bank, in Montreal, for something wrong. Q. You say you are an advocate. Have not you been told by the court that you must confine yourself to his reputation for truth? Did you ever hear any person say that he was a liar, and that he would not tell the truth? A. Many. Q. When was the first time you heard it said that he was a liar, and that he would not tell the truth, or words to that effect? A. I have answered that before, I think, but I will repeat. It was when he was employed in the education office that his character became very bad. I have heard many persons say that it was not possible to believe that man. Q. Who were they? A. It was about five years ago, and I did not take notice of the fact at the time, because I did not know that I would be obliged to appear in Washington about his case. Q. You recollect what was said, and yet you cannot recollect the persons who said it? A. Certainly; it is a very different thing. I recollect the fact that not only one or two persons, but a large number of persons, knew St. Marie as a man whom they could not believe; but it is very difficult, after five years, to remember the names of the persons. Q. Can you state the names of any of the persons that you heard say, before the arrest of Surratt, that he was not a man to be believed? A. I can; in the first place I can name myself. Q. Who else? A. I cannot mention the names; it was the general opinion in Montreal; it is perfectly easy to have a hundred witnesses to swear to that fact. JOSEPH DU TILLEY sworn and examined. (This witness being unable to speak English at all, his examination was conducted through Colonel James R. O'Beirne, previously sworn as interpreter.) By Mr. BRADLEY: Q. Where do you reside? A. West Shefford, Canada. Q. How long have you resided there? A. Several years. Q. Do you know Dr. McMillan, who has been examined as a witness in this case? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you at any time reside near where Dr. McMillan lived? A. Eight miles from there. Q. Do you know the people with whom he associated? A. No, sir. Q. Where did Dr. McMillan live at the time you knew him in 1862 ? A. Frost village. Q. Do you know the people at Frost village? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know where Waterloo is? A. O, yes, sir; very well. Q. How far from there? A. Eight miles. Q. Did Dr. McMillan live at Waterloo at any time? A. O, yes, sir. Q. How long did Dr. McMillan live at Waterloo ? A. To my knowledge, almost a year. Q. In what year? A. 1864. Q. Do you know the Canadian people who are acquainted with Dr. McMillan ? A. O, yes, sir. Q. Many, or few? A. A great many. Have you ever heard them speak of Dr. McMillan's character for truth? A. Yes, sir. Q. What kind of a character did they generally give him for truth-good or bad? A. Very little. Q. Do you mean to say that you have heard the people speak very little of him, or what do you mean? A. I mean to say that the people have spoken very little of him. Q. Do you know his general reputation among the people for truth? Q. What is that character for truth, good or bad? (Objected to by the district attorney, as the witness had not shown that he possessed sufficient knowledge to enable him to speak of his general reputation for truth and veracity.) The COURT. Have you often heard the people in the neighborhood where By Mr. BRADLEY : Q. Now I will ask you what is said of his general character for truth-is it good or bad? A. It is bad. Q. Have you ever heard his oath called in question in a court of justice? (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont. Objection sustained; and question ruled out) Q. State whether, from what people say generally of him, you would believe him on his oath? A. No, sir; I would not. Cross-examination by Mr. PIERREPONT: Q. What is your occupation? A. I do some things at Reynolds's gallery at Waterloo. Q. What is your present occupation? A. I am a farmer. Q. Do you know a priest by the name of Boucher? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is he the same one about whom Dr. McMillan spoke in his testimony? A. I think he is. Q. Have you been a servant of that priest, Boucher? A. No, sir. Q. Did the priest Boucher say anything to you about Dr. McMillan ? A. No, sir. Q. Did the priest Boucher say anything about a quarrel between him and Dr. McMillan about a debt of 1864? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did not you bring the money from the priest, Boucher, to Charles S. Martin at Waterloo? Q, Have you talked with the priest, Boucher, about Dr. McMillan ? Q. How lately? A. I have not spoken of Dr. McMillan for a month. Q. Did he speak to you of Dr. McMillan about a month ago? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he say anything to you against McMillan ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you say in the presence of Charles S. Martin that you would, whenever you had a chance, do Dr. McMillan what damage you could? A. No, sir. Q. Did he say anything against Dr. McMillan, or anything he would do against him? A. No, sir. Q. Are you hostile or unfriendly to Dr. McMillan ? A. I am friendly; I have no reason to be an enemy. A. At Shefford. Q. What was your occupation in 1864 ? A. I was engaged in cultivating a farm. Q. Have you at any time been in the service of this priest, Boucher? Q. Did you ever live in the house with him? A. Yes, sir. Q. When? A. In 1864. Q. Did I was there three months boarding with the priest. A. Yes, sir. I did not work for the curate, but for myself. A. Take him to different places in a carriage. Q. In whose carriage? A. In my own. Q. What business were you A. I cultivated a farm. Q. How much of a farm? A. About fifty acres. Q. What rent did A. Sixty dollars. you pay ? then doing? Q. When did you first go to live in the priest's house? A. In the year 1864. Q. What time in the year? A. At the end of April or the commencement of May. Q. When did you leave it? A. In August. Q. When did you go back to the house of the priest again? A. I returned in the month of January. Q. How long did you stay? A. I believe I remained there two months and a half. Q. When did you next return there? A. Every winter. Q. Were you there in the winters of 1865, '66, and '67 ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you talk with the priest about Dr. McMillan within the last month? A. Once. Q. Have you talked with the priest Boucher about McMillan since McMillan came here to testify? Do A. Yes, sir; once. Re-examined by Mr. BRADLEY: Q. You have been asked about a quarrel between Boucher and McMillan. know what that was about? you A. The priest has never spoken to me about it. When McMillan practiced chicanery with Boucher I was there; but I do not know the cause, as the curate put him outside. Q. When was that? A. 1866. Q State whether the money that you took to Dr. McMillan was after this quarrel about which you have been asked. (Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont, as not being responsive to anything brought ont on cross-examination. Objection sustained.) At 12.45 p. m. the court took a recess for half an hour. On reassembling, Mr. BRADLEY stated that the defence had five witnesses en route to Washington, who had been expected last night. They had evidently missed the railroad connections. They were material to the defence, and had they reached here the defence would have been able to close to-day. Mr. B. stated that the defence had used every diligence to obtain their presence, and were in receipt of telegrams to the effect that they were on the way. They would be here without doubt this evening or to-morrow morning, when the defence would be able to close the case. Mr. CARRINGTON said that under the circumstances, as it was alleged the evidence proposed to be offered was material to the defence, it would be improper in the government to interpose any objection to an adjournment at this time. It was understood that they would close to-morrow morning with the testimony of those witnesses. At 1.55 p. m. the court took a recess until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. The court met at 10 o'clock a. m. FRIDAY, July 19, 1867. Mr. BRADLEY stated that of three witnesses from abroad who were expected to-day, two, instead of being here, had forwarded certified copies of the railroad time-tables, in reference to which they were subpoenaed-which time-tables, counsel for the prosecution having assented, he offered in evidence. Mr. Bradley stated that, by these time-tables, it appeared that in April, 1865, the first passenger train of cars left Albany at 7 o'clock in the morning, and arrived at Syracuse at 1 20 p. m., making five hours and twenty minutes from Albany to Syracuse via New York Central railroad; that the train left Syracuse at 1.30 p, m., arriving at Canandaigua at 4.52 p. m. Mr. MERRICK proposed, also, to place in evidence a copy of Appleton's Railway Guide for March, 1865. Mr. PIERREPONT said he had no objection to Appleton's Railway Guide for April going in evidence as Appleton's Railway Guide, for what it is worth. He bjected to the Guide for March going in evidence as tending to prove what was the time for April. Mr. MERRICK said he had not been able to find a copy for April, but hoped to do so. |