ing that if Father Boucher arrived he should be examined on Monday; but that in case of his non-arrival, the prosecution should put in the rebutting testimony, and the case of the defence should be considered closed. The court then adjourned until Monday.

The court was opened at 10 o'clock.

MONDAY, July 22, 1867.

As soon as court was opened, Mr. Merrick stated that Mr. Edward F. Queen, who was ill last week when summoned, was now in court, and he asked that he be examined. The examination would occupy but a few moments.

Mr. PIERREPONT said he would not object if the examination would be brief. Mr. MERRICK said it would.

Mr Queen was called, but failed to respond.

Mr. MERRICK said they would proceed with the examination of another witness, Reverend Mr. Boucher, and perhaps by the time his examination was concluded, Mr. Queen would be in attendance.

Reverend CHARLES BOUCHER sworn and examined.

By Mr. BRADLEY:

Q. State where you reside.

A. I reside in the parish of St. Hiliare, Canada. I am rector of that parish. Q. You are a priest of the Catholic church?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where were you residing in April, 1865 ?

A. In the parish of St. Liboire.

Q. Look at the prisoner at the bar, and see if you recognize him?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. State whether you saw him in the month of April, 1865.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where?

A. The first time I saw him was in my place in St. Liboire.

Q. Do you recollect at or about what date it was ?

A. It was about the 22d of April, 1865. I think it was on the evening of

that day.

Q. Was he in company with any one when you first saw him?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who was it?

A. Mr. Joseph F. Du Tilly who brought him to my place.

Q. Was any one else with him?

A. No, sir.

Q. Is that the same Mr. Du Tilly who was examined as a witness in this case? A. Yes, sir.

Q. State how long he continued at your house.

A. He remained with me about three months—perhaps a little over.

Q. Where did he go after that?

A. To Montreal.

Q. Did you see him from time to time after that, until he left for Europe? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How frequently?

A. Sometimes twice, and sometimes three times a week.

Q. Always as often as twice a week?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. During that time do you know whether or not he received any information from the United States as to the condition of his mother?

(Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont, on the ground of its being hearsay evidence.) Mr. BRADLEY said it had been made the burden of the opening in this case, and repeated twice subsequently in incidental arguments, that the prisoner fled, abandoning his mother, thus proving himself a coward. He wanted to show the fact that he did not know what the condition of his mother was; that he had not the means or opportunities to learn what was passing in the United States, but that the facts were concealed from him. He proposed further to show by this witness what occurred when he was informed of the condition of his mother.

Mr. PIERREPONT remarked that the statement of the counsel made it quite clear that the evidence could not be admitted.

The COURT said it would certainly be violating the rule respecting hearsay evidence to admit it.

Mr. WILSON took occasion to say that there was no such remark in the opening address as had been intimated by Mr. Bradley. In that address there was no reference whatever made to the prisoner's mother.

Mr. BRADLEY said in that perhaps he was mistaken, but such a remark had undoubtedly fallen from the counsel for the prosecution during the progress of the trial, once from Judge Pierrepont and once from Mr. Carrington.

Mr. MERRICK said he remembered very distinctly the remark made by the district attorney at the time he asked him for his authority.

The DISTRICT ATTORNEY said it was possible he did make such a remark. Mr. MERRICK submitted that such a statement having been made by counsel, they had now the right to rebut the same in order to relieve the prisoner from the danger of any prejudice which might be created thereby.

Mr. PIERREPONT inquired whether the counsel would allow the government to introduce testimony to rebut all they had said in the case.

Mr. MERRICK replied that they had not the slightest objection to the government introducing testimony to rebut anything they had said on their side. The COURT remarked that he had.

Mr. MERRICK said he was speaking of the offer of the counsel. The court of course might interpose to prevent an acceptance of the proposition. So far as they were concerned, however, they were perfectly willing that everything which would tend to throw light on the case should go to the jury.

The COURT said he never knew it to be held that the fact of a counsel making a statement in argument authorized proof to be brought to show that that statement was incorrect; neither had he ever heard of proof being brought to wipe out prejudices which it was feared might be created in the mind of the jury. The offer was overruled. Exception reserved.

Mr. MERRICK then proposed to show that when he did learn of his mother's peril he insisted upon returning, but was restrained from doing so.

(Objected to. Offer overruled and exception reserved.)

Q. Be good enough to state what was the condition of the health of the prisoner from the time he reached your house until he left for Europe.

(Objected to by Mr. Pierrepont on the ground that they had given no evidence on the subject.)

The COURT ruled that evidence might be given regarding his health. The question being repeated to the witness, he answered as follows: A. He was in very poor health; he had fever and ague. The first time he remained at my house he had a disease once or twice a week, and the rest of the time he remained in Canada he had it every other day. We used to call it the "chills." His health was very poor. He remained in bed whole days at a time. At such times he could hardly move. He was very pale and weak. Sometimes I was apprehensive that he might not live.

Q. He was greatly reduced by his illness?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. State whether you know a witness examined in this case named Dr. Louis J. McMillan.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When and where did you know him?

A. I knew him in the township of Shefford.
Q. When was that?

A. I was there five years.

Q. At what time was he there?

A. It must have been about 1860 when I became acquainted with him, 1860 or 1861. I am not sure whether it was six or seven years.

Q. Did you know him afterwards in 1864?

A. O, yes, sir. I lived in Shefford then. He was my parishioner.

Q. State, if you please, whether you had opportunities to know his general character among those with whom he associated as a man of truth and veracity. A. I had opportunities of knowing him.

Q. Did you know how he was generally esteemed among such in regard to truth and veracity?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was his character for truth good or bad?

A. As well as I can say, I do not think his character was very good.

Q. Was it good or bad?

A. Bad.

Q. Mr. Du Tilly was asked on his cross-examination whether you ever had any quarrel with him or not.

A. We had a certain contestation.

Q. Was that in relation to any money transaction?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was he or not, prior to the time you had the quarrel with him, your parishioner?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Had you or not had conversations with him on the subject-matter that gave rise to that quarrel?

A. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY. I propose now, if your honor please, to give in evidence the cause of that quarrel, which has been brought out on the other side.

Mr. PIERREPONT. We have no objection if your honor will allow Dr. McMillan to be called in reply.

The Court. Of course.

Mr. BRADLEY. To that they have an undoubted right.

Q. Will you state what was the cause of that quarrel-what preceded it? A. I must confess that I feel a little reluctance to speaking of it.

reported to me

Mr. PIERREPONT. Don't state what was reported to you.

It was

Mr. BRADLEY. If you told him what had been reported to you, state it. WITNESS. You want to know what I stated to him when we had our conversation, I suppose?

A. Yes, sir.

WITNESS. I spoke to him about a principle that I disliked. It was on account of abortion. He argued the point with me, contending that it was not against good morals. I tried to convince him that it was. We did not get very far that time. I met him in a house where we were both called on sick calls. He was called for his medical attendance, and I was called for my spiritual advice. That is all I can state of that conversation.

Q. When you had the quarrel what passed?

A. After the first conversation loud complaints came to me, and I thought I would advise Dr. McMillan not to practice that any more among my people. He happened to pass my house, and I had my servant man call him in. To begin the conversation with him, I spoke about the money matter-the $5—and then I spoke about the main point.

Q. What did you say about the $5 to Dr. McMillan ?

A. I said that I had been delaying the payment to him because he had subscribed towards the building of a church in Waterloo.

Q. How much?

A. I can't say exactly, but I think from $5 to $10. I was owing him $5, and I thought I would keep that towards the subscription, because it was made. payable to me. He looked to be very much excited on the point. I said to him at that time that I would like to advise him not to practice abortion nor to argue the point before the people; that it would be a great scandal. He then made an insulting reply, and I took hold of him by the collar and put him out. I wanted to protest publicly

Mr. PIERREPONT. Never mind what you wanted to do. You must confine yourself to what you said to him.

A. I could not say any more when he was out.

Q. You spoke of having your servant call him in. Was Mr. Du Tilly, who was examined as a witness here, ever your servant, or employed by you?

A. He was employed by me sometimes, but he never was my servant. He had horses, and sometimes used to drive my carriage-drive me around. I had a horse of my own, and he took me out.

Q. State whether you have any hostile feelings towards Dr. McMillan now in consequence of that quarrel, or from any other cause.

A. No, sir; I never had any spite against him.

Q. I have asked you as to his general reputation among those with whom he is known for truth and veracity. Would you or not, from that general reputation, believe him on his oath in a matter in which he was interested?

A. No, sir; I would not.

Cross-examination.

Q. Do you know this gentleman sitting here at my right? (Dr. Erskine.) A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was he present when you had the quarrel with McMillan?

A. I do not remember having seen him then.

Q. Don't you remember whether he was or not?

A. No, sir.

Q. Can't you tell the jury whether he was present or was not present? A. I do not recollect distinctly; but since I have come to reflect upon it, it strikes me that there was somebody in the wagon outside.

Q. Does it strike you that that somebody was your family physician, this gentleman sitting at my right, (Dr. Erskine ?)

A. He was called several times to my house.

Q. Does it strike you that this is the gentleman?
A. I take him to be Dr. Erskine.

Mr. PIERREPONT. Yes, sir; it is Dr. Erskine.

Q. Was this gentleman, Dr. Erskine, there at the time of this trial?

A. I caunot say.

Q. You say it strikes you somebody was; who does it strike you it was, if it was not Dr. Erskine ?

A. My whole attention was brought on Dr. McMillan.

Q. Was your whole attention brought upon the one who was with him?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who does it strike you was with him?

A. I cannot tell.

Q. Does it strike you that this gentleman was, or was not?

A. I cannot tell.

Q. What is your best memory, as you recall the scene, as to whether this gentleman was the somebody who you say it strikes you was out there? A. I cannot tell.

Q. Can't you tell us whether he was the one or not?

A. No, sir.

Q. Will you state where this conversation that you speak of with Dr. McMillan occurred?

A. It was in my house.

Q. Did any one else hear that conversation?

A. There was nobody present in the parlor but Dr. McMillan and myself when the conversation or the quarrel took place.

Q. Won't you tell exactly what that conversation was?

A. It was very short; I have just given it.

Q. You have stated it all?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Won't you tell us when it was?

A. As well as I can remember, it was in the month of June.

Q. Of what year?

A. 1866.

Q. When did you next see Dr. McMillan after this?

A. It is very difficult for me to answer, because he was a physician, and he used to attend to sick persons all around in the township of Shefford, and I left there after a while.

Q. Had he a bad character as a man of truth where he was attending as a physician?

A. Yes, sir, among my people.

Q. Tell me who you heard speak of his bad character?

A. It was his general reputation.

Q. Who did you hear speak of it?

A. Well, I can mention some names; for instance, a Frenchman by the name of Potvin.

Q. Can you tell me any other?

A. A Scotchman by the name of Christopher McRae.

Q. Did he say he was a man of bad character for truth?

A. I remember very well that he said he would not believe him.

Q. When?

A. I think it was in the year 1864.

Q. What is McRae's business?

A. He is a tailor.