Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-10-31
SELECTIONS.


1t 10 undoubtedly true as was stated bv The
counsel Tor the defendants well as by those for
e people, that 1t Is the right of the jury to decide
upon the case before them, both on the law md
,ne iac'. no man can be indicted-no mans Ii
6erty can be encroached upon-no man "a, bs
brought before criminal tribunal but by ipry of
'' county, anu TO give full effect to these priyi-
'eEesn ~ necessary that they should be invested
WIN me power over the fact as well as the law
trust that you will decide on the evidence and the
raw WIN conscientious regard TO your duty with
tender regard to the defendants, and with pro-.
per attention 10 the cause of the peopIe Inn,
'his 90 these defendants depend and no less SO the
cause of public Justice. ~
Before turn your attention to the tes,iuo,v oF
TINS case shall proceed TO consider the objections
which nave been raised 10 the Indictment 7, i.
d'9ea oy Inc counsel for the defendants that there
ie O"t Two counts IN one declaration, and that in
e"ch OF Them they are charged with one conspj,acv
and that II they are charged with one thew cannot
De iouhd guilty OF divers conspiracies This posi-
ton is well taken. This is the law. when b,,
one conspiracy is charged, the defendants can be
convicted OF but one. You will bear in mind gen
ue'neh' that there are two counts. By counts YOU
are 10 understand two separate and distiuc, cha,
ses- For all legal purposes, it il the same az t,vo
charges Under this indictment, you cannot find
them guilty OF TWO separate conspiracies His Ho-
nor men stated another objection which had bee,
taken 10 the evidence OF proving a conspiracy bur
1t was not sustained by him as the law. He stated
mat The nature OF the proof depended on the neces
my Vi 'he case There was anoth er position, said
ne, taken by the counsel, that il was not necess,,r
when a number. indicted that all sborld he -
Vc'ei. 1t Is conceded that portion NAV be ar
Quilted and portion condemned. 1t is also con
'eeeo 'hat The offence must be proved co existent
with the Indictment and that if that is proved ,b
must all be convicted or none of them. becau.e
.hey are al charged with the same offence. But
the law does not bear this out.
Another ground has been taken. that ~ -.
conspiracy as laid in the Indictment was 10 dsT
rauo all The companies and all the individuals the
irapus Piaclsed upon their goods must be their
JOINT goods. This objection rests on the sama 49,
gument as the Other and is susceptible of the sama
answer.
He then alluded TO another objection vobicb b.,
been taken by the counsel for the defendants r,
was alleged on their part that the whole CHARGE in
the indictment must BE made out, SO as To nj
any part operative. TO this he objected. He ~
lowed that to set forth the charge clearly yvs.
Cardinal principle IN law and Justice mt !, 10
you, said he, whether it would be possible for the
public prosecutor 10 convict out of ten of CON.
spracy, if this position was good3 Consniroo;..
are secret in their very nature; they sbun the I;h
they screen themselves from public Observation -
IL me public prosecutor must prove eyery char.
IN the Indictment, conviction could seIdnm no g,
fected. W e.
VIII now proceed TO consider the evidence i,
support OF the charges. In the course of NV 70
MARKS VIII suggest to you the proprie,y of con-
sidernS whether The evidence does not On IN a.
'ablish general conspiracy or wbetber on,r
part OF The defendants are liable or whether onl,
IL proves separate and distinct conspiracies. Il +;
moi my intention To enter minutey into the testi
'hohy. ms is unnecessary. The facts are before
you ana 'ney nave been commented upon fully by
Inc counsel. Every citizen is presumed 10 he in
hocent oh'h ne Is found 10 be guilty. You mus.
not admit any impression of their guilt into vm,r
minds. In contemplating the evidence. Won ,,iis
distinguish what Is legal evidence from admissible
al Is not testimony against all the defendants
Other portions are only admissible to prove ,Lss.
acts 1t Is admissible 10 prove their declaration'.
only LOT the purpose Of showing the existence nj
a conspiracy, and then only applicable to each in
uFiuu"' ~ Inc conspiracy Is proved to your sa
usisctIon, then the acts of all the defendan,s 90
lar as they are In furihersnce of the concerted ST.
are binding upon all the conspirstors, ON the rnle.
tnat the acts OF the agent are binding on the p,,
clpa but II If first necessary that the ioint cor
spracy should be fully proved TO your sa,isfacIio,,
again, the books OF the different companie. ,o =
certain extern IS evidence against them, bat thee
are only admissible for what they are wor,b
With these preliminary remarEs. will no,.
coed to place the testimony before you Asfw,g
well remarked by one of the counsel il is ali j.;
portant, not only that the state of the life AL
/ IRE Company should be distinctly ascertain.d. b,t
how II stood in the immediate view Of the rssoon
I'VE defendants 1t one or any Of those indiyidu-
ans oeeved those institutions, in fact and in truth
70 be solvent, II must have great bearing upon
them' what was its actual condition, il no, ne.
cessary TO inquire. The question is who bsIisasI
II 70 be solvent! II is fully proved that its cant
lal OF %4OV,VOO was gone: IL is also proved The,
bonds to the amount of S640, 600 we're ont. ,r5
tnai there was deficiency Of S;I00 900 II ia aIso
proved that on The LIST of May il had half m;lIio,.
OF protested notes in its possession. and ,ba, =;
November 1925, bonds were out amounting *
Sl,SOO,OOO. Now, the question is how fsI a.,
'ay "''hh me knowledge OF those defendants,
VIII turn your attention to MIR. Eckford. II an
pears u'"t nlf' T. wac President, but that in M
Tember, 1924, he withdrew himself. apd tbat ~,
hisreiuru in 1926, there were bonds ont - .0 y"
considerably over million of dollars I, ,,o,,,I
De unreasonable to visit upon Mr.. Eckford ,ybst
occurred during his absence. He returned. boy
ever, III November, 1925 and continued there q,
me time OF its failure. With respect To bis rrear
oil knowing the condition of the companv. i, :;
Proof that they kept bank book, that il was ,es
uiaIIy kept, and that II is simple, that MIR. Ecp
1910 or any other man having access to il, might
nave known ITS condition. 1t appears also tina, bs
mace strenuous exertions TO reduce the circulation
! OF the bonds. The necessities of the comnsnv
mus, have led him 10 know its situation Tbiscn.,
unue9 from November till the time Of f,iI,,e .
niue before which time SIR. Eckford was shog,
en'efihe INTO contract with Mr.. Lawrence on =.
oohu OF speculation. The evidence Of NJ Is,y
renee iWnishss strong circumstance in fnitios-
'lon' and shows that Mr.. Eckford twas no, 81
| acqua'a'ed with the situation of the comoanv !.
TOT Jou 20 say how far this will 90 in his Gvour
aug Wheher he might not have expected To inden.-
MY himself az a subsequent time
mi