Recently in Newport, Kentucky (across the Ohio River, opposite Cincinnati), a cause for ejectment was on trial, in which the defendants called a witness by the name of Isaac Yelton for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of a witness named William Orcutt, who had testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. After the direct examination of Yelton was concluded, he was turned over to Mr. Carlisle, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, for cross-examination, when the following evidence was elicited:
ATTORNEY. “Are you and Orcutt on good terms with each other ?“
WITNESS. “Yes, Sir.”
ATTORNEY. “Did you never have any quarrel or difficulty ?“
WITNESS. “No, Sir; we never did.”
ATTORNEY. “Did you not take Orcutt’s wife away from him and run away with her; and did you not have a difficulty with him about that ?“
WITNESS. “I never took his wife away from him.”
ATTORNEY. “Did not you and a man named Gosney take his wife away?
WITNESS. “His wife went away with me and Gosney, but we did not take her away from Orcutt. There was no difficulty at all about it; it was all satisfactory. I traded him a horse for his wife, but I found that I had been imposed on, and I returned her to him, and it was all right. There was no quarrel or difficulty about it.”
ATTORNEY. “How were you imposed upon ?“
WITNESS. “I traded the horse for his wife, but he put on me besides two children and a dog; so I returned her to him. I do not mean that he cheated me in the trade, for the transaction was all fair; but he imposed on me—he got the best of the bargain. I had no use for the two children and the dog.”
The idea! of impeaching a son of Kentucky for “such conducts as those.”
Harper's, March, 1870, page 632.