the man, and ne would not tell me whether the man was killed at all or not. Now, in that stage of the case, upon that record, the gentleman proposes to prove by parol evidence what appears on record. The man has not admitted yet that anybody was killed; and if nobody was killed, how could he be tried? Then, in the next place, if he was tried, how are you going to prove it by parol? We have not the benefit of any testimony on the subject. The truth is, I do the witness the justice to say that he has not answered my question at all. He has not stated that the man was killed; he has stated that he understood he was killed. He would not state that he himself had a hand in it, and he would not state that he knows the man's name. That is the way it stands, and I object to any thing further about it. Mr. EWING. He has stated that he was tried, and I now ask him in what court? Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. I did not ask him if he was tried. Mr. EWING. He stated that he was tried, and now I ask simply, in what court? I do not ask the result of the investigation. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. If there was nobody killed, there was nobody hurt, I reckon. Q. In what court were you tried? Q. Were you, during last spring, winter, or fall, in any house on H Street, in the city of Washington? A. I do not recollect. I do not think I was in any house on H Street, though. Q Have you any acquaintances living on H Street? A. No, sir, none at all, that I know of. Q. Have you any acquaintances living on H Street, between Sixth and Seventh? A. I do not think I have. Q. Do you know in what part of the city Mrs. Surratt lives? A. I do not. I never saw her house in my life. I do not know any thing about Mrs. Surratt's residence. By ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE BINGHAM. Q You say you were tried in a court. What were you tried for? No answer. Q. Do you know what you were tried for? A. I suppose I was tried for what you stated awhile ago. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. No, sir; I did not state it at all. WITNESS. You said I killed a man. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. No, I did not. WITNESS. You asked me if I did not. Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM. asked you if you did, and you did not answer the question. Now I ask you for what you were tried? tried in that case. I know Marcus P. Norton, who testified here to-day. His general reputation for ve racity in Troy, New York, is very bad, and I would not believe him under oath. Cross-examined by the JUDGE ADVOCATE. I live in Troy, and hold some valuable patents for the manufacture of horseshoes, etc. I have had legal controversies about these patents, and Mr. Norton was engaged as counsel by one of the parties opposed to me in those suits. I have not formed my opinion of him from his conduct in conducting those suits; I did not know him prior to his engaging in those controversies. When I say that Mr. Norton is not to be believed under oath, I think I am expressing what the people of Troy generally think. I derived my knowledge of his character from testimony taken to impeach him in a case tried in Troy. By ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE BINGHAM, A large array of witnesses were called, most of whom I knew, to impeach Mr. Norton. I did not hear the witnesses testify, but I have seen them. By MR. DOSTER. Troy that Mr. Norton is not to be believed. It is the general opinion of the people of D. W. MIDDLETON. For the Defense.—June 6. I am clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Marcus P. Norton arIgued a motion in the Supreme Court in the case of Willis Hamiston v. John Stainthrop, et al., on the 3d of March, 1864. [The entry from the court records was read by the witness.] JUDGE A. B. OLIN. For the Defense.—June 9. By MR. DOSTER. I resided in the city of Troy, New York, about twenty years prior to my coming to this city, two years ago. I knew Marcus P. Norton, a lawyer of that city. Judging by what people say of him in respect to his character for veracity, I should say his reputation was bad, and where his interests, or passions, or prejudices were enlisted, I would not rely upon his testimony under oath. Cross-examined by the JUDGE ADVOCATE. friends, continued through a series of years, under the influence of excited legal controversies in which this witness was involved against him, afford to your mind some explanation of the reputation which you say exists? Mr. DOSTER. I object to that question. The JUDGE ADVOCATE. I wish to get at the grounds of the witness's opinion, and I think this is a legitimate mode of reaching it. brought here as an expert as to the character Mr. DoSTER. Judge Olin can scarcely be of the testimony of Mr. Burden. It is not material to the issue what Mr. Burden said. The JUDGE ADVOCATE. It is not an impeachment of Mr. Burden; it is an explana The opinion I express has been formed tion. from the speech of those who have been Mr. DOSTER. It is evidently brought here brought into contact with him; generally to contradict and invalidate the testimony of persons against whom he has been employed Mr. Burden. There can be no other object. as counsel or attorney, or parties litigating The JUDGE ADVOCATE. I can not take the in patent suits that he had been connected opinion of Judge Olin without the privilege with. of looking at the foundation for that opinion, and the question is directed but to that object. Q State whether you have knowledge of the fact that that particular class of suits, probably more than others, excites bitter personal animosity? A. All the knowledge I have of them mostly arises since the commencement of my duties here as a judge of this District. I had uniformly refused to take employment in that kind of cases, though I had opportunity to do so, and I had very little knowledge of those controversies, except incidentally, until I came here, where appeals are frequently brought from the Commissioner of Patents to the court of which I am a member, and I have seen enough of them to know that they are about as bitter as any controversies in law that I have any knowledge of. Q. Are not the parties and counsel in these cases extremely censorious in the tone of conversation about each other? The Commission overruled the objection. WITNESS. Yes, undoubtedly it would. Mr. Burden is a man of wealth, high social position, and many friends, and he usually speaks his mind freely. Mr. Norton's reputation, I believe, was very questionable before he had any controversy or connection with Mr. Burden. Mr. Norton is not considered one of the leading lawyers of Troy, and is not classed among lawyers of any considerable attainments, as far as I know. He is, I understand, an ingenious and excellent mechanic, and is prob ably very efficient in cases of the description in which he is usually employed. Mr. EWING, by the consent of the Judge Advocate, presented the following agreement entered into between him and the Judge Advocate: A. I have seen instances of that kind. I know Mr. Burden, of Troy, very well. "It is admitted by the prosecution that Mr. Marcus P. Norton has been employed as John F. Watson, John R. Richardson, and counsel in opposition to him in patent cases. Thomas B. Smith, loyal citizens, will testify Mr. Burden is a very wealthy man. He has that they are acquainted with the reputation had several very warmly contested suits. of Daniel J. Thomas where he lives, and One of them is known all over the country- that it is bad; and that, from their knowlthe suit in reference to the spike machine, edge of it, they would not believe him on his invention for making hook-headed spikes. oath. And, further, that John R. RichardHis controversy with Corning & Co. has son above named will testify that Daniel J. been pending now before Chancellor Wal- Thomas (the witness for the prosecution) worth for ten or twelve years, taking testi- made the statement on the 1st of June (the mony in reference to the damages that he National Fast Day,) as sworn to by William sustained. I believe he has not got through J. Watson before the Court this day. And with it. He has had several other very the prosecution agree that this statement be warmly contested suits of the same kind. put upon record, and received and weighed Q Would not the conversation of a man by the Court as though said witnesses had of his fortune and influence, and that of his actually so testified before it." TESTIMONY IN REBUTTAL JOHN F. HARDY. For the Prosecution.-June 8. were some chestnut-trees, which Dr. Mudd had ordered me to fell and cut up into rails for him. I live about two and a half or three miles I can not recall the dates on which I saw from Dr. Mudd, the prisoner at the bar. On Booth in the county. I do not remember Saturday evening, the day after the assassin- any dates at all. I think the two visits were ation, just before sundown, I saw Dr. Mudd about a month apart, perhaps a little more within a few hundred yards of my house. or less, and the first visit I think must have He said that there was terrible news; that been some time in November. It strikes me the President and Mr. Seward and his son that Booth's visits were before Christmas. I had been assassinated the evening before. saw him twice on his second visit; on SunSomething was said in that connection about day at church, and on Monday evening I Boyle (the man who is said to have killed met him riding by himself on the road leadCaptain Watkins) assassinating Mr. Seward. ing straight to Horsehead. I remember that Booth's name was men- When Dr. Mudd mentioned the news he tioned in the same connection, and I asked had got at Bryantown, he seemed to be him if it was the man who had been down somewhat excited, but not more so than the there, and was represented as Booth. His reply was that he did not know whether it was that man or some of his brothers; he understood that he had some brothers. That ended the conversation, except that he said it was one of the most terrible calamities that could have befallen the country at this time. Q. Did you say that it was understood or said that Booth was the assassin of the President? A. There was some such remark as that made, but I do not exactly remember the remark. He said nothing to me in that conversation about two strangers having called at his house, and remaining there all day. people of the county generally when they first heard it. When I first heard it, I could hardly believe it. I could hardly express my feelings when I heard it; I felt very singular. He seemed to feel sincerely sorry. I do not think he staid ten minutes. From the position in which we were, I could not notice whether any one rode with him along the main road; there was a bunch of pines on an elevated spot, just above where we were standing, from which the road goes, and then makes a turn, so that I could not see. I heard of no one being with him. It is I know where Esquire George Gardiner lives very well; he is the gentleman that is When I asked if it was Booth that had said to have sold a horse to Booth. been down there, I referred to the stranger the nearer road from Bryantown to Esquire that I had seen at church some time before Gardiner's to go by Dr. Mudd's house, which last Christmas, perhaps in November, whose is a little off the main road, than to go by name I was told was Booth. I saw him the main road. outside the church; I do not know whether he went into church. I saw him at the same place some time afterward, and asked if it was the same man, and the answer was "Yes." I do not remember whether Dr. Mudd was there on either occasion. Cross-examined by MR. EWING. By ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE BINGHAM. Dr. Mudd did not tell me how or from whom he had obtained the information that the President had been assassinated the evening before; he simply said he had heard it at Bryantown. FRANCIS R. FARRELL. I do not think I asked Dr. Mudd what was the news; he told me there was bad For the Prosecution.-June 8. news in the country. He said that he had been to Bryantown and got the news there. I live near Bryantown, and am very well I had not heard a word of it before. Dr. acquainted with Dr. Samuel A. Mudd. He Mudd seemed to be in earnest when he came to my house on Easter Saturday evenspoke of this being a terrible calamity, and ing last, the day following the assassination I do honestly think he felt the sorrow of the President, as near as I can judge, be he expressed. The conversation took place tween 4 and 5 o'clock. My house is about about two hundred yards from my door, and midway between Dr. Mudd's and Bryantown; my house is two and a half miles walking he came from the road leading to Bryantown, distance, or three miles horseback, from Dr. and turned into the road that leads to my Mudd's. Dr. Mudd came to see me about house. I do not know whether he was some rail lumber, about which I had spoken coming from Bryantown, and did not learn to him some time early in the winter; they it from his conversation. Q. While he was at your house, was the assassination of the President a subject of conversation between him and yourself? A. Yes, sir, he told it there. Mr. EWING. I object. The JUDGE ADVOCATE. The gentleman objects to our giving the statements of Dr. Mudd in evidence, I suppose. Mr. EwING. I object to it on the ground that it is not rebutting evidence. that could have happened. That was the I do not know whether any one was with The JUDGE ADVOCATE. I could offer it on Dr. Mudd on the main road; I can not see another and distinct ground; that it is, so far any part of it from my house, but there as we understand it, a confession on the part was no one with him in the road leadof the prisoner which is at all times com- ing down to my house, after he left the main petent evidence and that it has come to our road. knowledge since the commencement of this Dr. Mudd came to see Mr. Hardy about trial, and since the close of our testimony getting some rail timber, so he said; but on this point. On that ground alone, I think he did not get any; Mr. Hardy had let Mr. the Court, in the exercise of a sound dis- Sylvester Mudd have the timber. I can not cretion, would allow it to be introduced; but be sure about the time when Dr. Mudd came I think also it is strictly rebutting testimony offered for the defense. Mr. EWING. I will state to the Court that, if this testimony is admitted, it will be indispensable to the rights of the accused to have one or more witnesses from that neighborhood who have not already been subpenaed. The Commission overruled the objection. WITNESS. Mr. Hardy and myself were in the house when Dr. Mudd came there, and Mr. Hardy went out and had some talk with the Doctor; I do not know what. Directly after he went out, he called out to me that the President was assassinated, and also Seward and his son, I think. Then I called out to where Dr. Mudd and Mr. Hardy were, and asked if it was so; I understood the Doctor to say it was. there; it was cloudy and I could not see the sun; it might have been as late as 5 o'clock; it seemed a short time after he left till it was dark, not more than a couple of hours, any how. JACOB SHAVOR. For the Prosecution.-June 12. Since the summer of 1858, I have known Marcus P. Norton quite intimately. We have both lived in Troy. He has been employed by the firm of Charles Eddy & Co., of which I am a member, for six years, as patent lawyer. He has had, and is still getting, practice in Troy. I know that his reputation, as a man of integrity and truth, is good there; and from my knowledge of his reputation, his conduct, and character, I would fully believe him under oath. In the early part of 1863, an attempt was made to impeach Mr. Norton's credibility as a wit ness, but it was unsuccessful, and it was so regarded by the public and by myself. Cross-examined by MR. DOSTER. I asked the question who assassinated the President, and the Doctor replied and said, "A man by the name of Booth." Mr. Hardy then asked him if it was the Booth that was down there last fall. The Doctor said that he did not know whether it was or not; that there were three or four men of the name of Booth, and he did not know whether it was that one or not; he said that if it was Mr. Norton's reputation for veracity among that one, he knew him. That was all he the business men of Troy generally is good. said about it, excepting that he said he I do know that an unsuccessful attempt to was very sorry that this thing had occurred-impeach him was made; but I do not know that eighty men in Troy swore that he could He did not give any particulars of the not be believed; others in Troy know that, assassination, and made no allusion to two as you yourself know. men having been at his house that morning We employed Mr. Norton in the Stanley and during the day. I don't think he staid case, and in a number of others; we have over fifteen minutes. I can not say which more or less every year. In an individual way he turned when he got on to the main road after he left; neither did I see from which way he came when he turned into the lane leading to my house. very sorry. Cross-examined by MR. EWING. It was Mr. John F. Hardy that was in my house when Dr. Mudd came. Dr. Mudd said that he thought at this time that the killing of the President was the worst thing case of my own, I employed another lawyer, and Mr. Norton was a witness. It was an important case, and it was in this case that an attempt was made to impeach Mr. Norton's testimony. Q. And if this man's testimony had been successfully impeached, you would have lost the case, would you not? Assistant Judge Advocate BINGHAM objected to the question, and it was waived. WILLIS HAMISTON. For the Prosecution.-June 12. petent for me to corroborate the statement which Mr. Norton made before the assas sination of the President, and before there I reside in Troy, and have known Marcus had arisen any possible motive for the fabriP. Norton for nine or ten years, intimately cation of this testimony, to show that that for six. His reputation for truth and integ- statement was substantially the same, as far rity, as far as my knowledge extends, is good, as it went, as that which he has now made and I would believe him under oath or not. before the Court in regard to the call the He was engaged in two patent cases for me, prisoner, Mudd, made at his room, asking and is extensively employed in patent cases for Booth. I think it is competent to susin the United States Courts. tain him, assisted as he has been by testimony for the defense. Cross-examined by MR. DOSTER. Mr. Norton is not employed as a witness in my individual case; he is my lawyer. There is considerable money involved in it. HON. HORATIO KING. For the Prosecution.-June 12. The Commission overruled the objection. WITNESS. I recollect perfectly that he mentioned at the time that some person had come into the room very abruptly, so much so as to alarm his sister-in-law, who was in an adjoining room; I do not remember for whom he said the person inquired. I think he told me this some time in March, but I can not state positively, nor can I state orecisely when this entrance was made. By MR. DOSTER. Mr. Norton did not, that I remember, men I reside in Washington City, and have been an Assistant Postmaster-General and Postmaster-General. While living here, I have made the acquaintance of Marcus P. Norton, of Troy; I have known him quite intimately for eight or ten years. Before Ition his having overheard a conversation left the Department I saw him very fre- between Booth and Atzerodt while he was quently, once or twice a year, perhaps oft- there; he first alluded to it in a letter he ener; but since I left the department I have wrote to me on the 15th of May. had business with him, and have seen him oftener, and known more of him, than before. I have always regarded him as scrupulously honest and correct. So far as his business with me is concerned, I never dealt with a more truthful man, or one more particular to keep his engagements; and from my knowledge of him and his character, I would most unhesitatingly and fully believe him under oath. Cross-examined by MR. DOSTER. By ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATe Burnett. Q. [Submitting to the witness a letter.] Is that the letter to which you refer ? A. It is. It was received by me, I presume, on the 17th of May. It bears my indorsement. The letter is dated Troy, New York, May 15, 1865, addressed to me, and signed "Marcus P. Norton." Mr. DoSTER. I object to the reading of the letter. Assistant Judge Advocate BURNETT. [To the witness.] Read the passage of it which relates to the matter of which you are now speaking. WITNESS. It is: "I believe Johnson was I have never lived in Troy, and do not know Mr. Norton's reputation there. I know nothing of his reputation for veracity except as I came in contact with him here. My business with him was in reference to patent poisoned on the evening of March 3d, or the post-rating and canceling stamps. I know morning of March 4th, last. I know of nothing of him beyond that here, but I knew some things which took place at the Nahim quite intimately. I never heard tional Hotel last winter, between Booth and one here speak otherwise than favorably of strangers to me, which, since the death of him. I never heard that his character for our good President, have thrown me into veracity was impeached until the present talk with you when I see you." alarm and suspicion, and about which I will time. By the JUDGE Advocate. any I saw Mr. Norton frequently in March last; I used to meet him nearly every day while he was here last winter. Q. State whether or not, in any of those conversations, he mentioned to you the singular manner in which some person had called at his room, asking for Booth. By MR. DOSTER. I think that is the first intimation I had of it; I do not remember Mr. Norton's mentioning that conversation to me before. I met him nearly every day last winter. By MR. EWING. Mr. Norton was here at the inauguration; Mr. DOSTER. I object to that question, I procured tickets for him and his friends because it is not material to the point in to go into the Capitol, and my impression issue. Besides, it has not been brought out is that he did not leave the city until sevon the cross-examination. eral days afterward. I know that I saw him after the inauguration, because he spoke of The JUDGE ADVOCATE. It is entirely com |