Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1827-08-11

'nc acCuseu. - case mas aisen IN tins Stale, wuerc
principal admitted witness against his aCcessa
rics refer, said the Judge, the case Of Jack Iiod-
ges, negro man, who testified ag ainst Conckng and
another, at an oyer and ter,niner the county Of
Orange The question Of the competency of the wit
ness was not discussed IN that CASE but he admitted
IN The sound discretion of the under the ccum
stances o! that CASE The judge here stated the civ
cuTstances OF that going 10 show that tho Jack
was technically the principal the accessories against
whom he testified, in moral point of view.
guilty than the witness, they had seduced and briScd
him with the hope of freedom be being slave to
perpe,rate the crime After lie had testified, he
pardoned by special act of the Legislature and it
insisted that if Sirang the principal in the felony
which has been committed, is permitted TO testify, ho
also will be entitled to pardon the implied PROMISE
that he makes full and fair confession Of the whole
truth he shall have the benefit of pardon Judge
here discussed at length the principle governing
the granting of pardons in such cases, and the
conclusion, that If the convict sictly and amply peror
med tho condition Of the implied promise that lie
told the whole truth TO the satisfaction Of the court whe
Their the person against whom he testified convicted
or acquitted, he had equitable claim uon the court
to a recommendation for mercy, and legal claim
upon the government for pardon; upon which principle
he rs member of the legislature voted for pardon TO
Jack Hodges, though in that case, Jack Hodges had
ocen expressly told by the presiding Judge that he must
ho' expect or hope for pardon though he should dis
close all tic circumstances of the Casc sti surprising
mat was not in the power of the 10 limit the
operation OF the law, the person convicted wing per
formed the condition upon which implied promise
the part of the government is raised he thoupbt
him entitled 10 pardon.
These being the general rules applicable to cases of
this KIND 1t only remained apply them 10 the case al
the bar From tbe evidence before the court il appear
ed that Strang, the principal in this case, neda,ed the
murder he committed for the space OF six months; that
he had an elicit intercourse with the prisoner at the
bar; that lie had expressed himself determined 10 have
her 1t cost him his life. and proposed take her with
uiin 10 Canada He's about 80 years of age de-
hcIcDt IN experience; the contrary, artiu and de-
ccptiye passing himself off an unmarried man. and
under false and assumed name. The character in
which he appears before the court his participa-
lion in the crime which has been committed, is not
that OF technical but Of real prncipal-not as an
instrument used BY the prisoner get rid Of her hus-
band, but the seducer of the prisoner to obtain pos
session OF her person and property. The prisoner at
al Inc oar appears as young woman, now about 25
years ofage; married at the early age of II or J., 10
her late husband possessed OF property 10 consdera-
BILE amount; of character light, frivolous weak vain
imprudent and wcked, and guilty to certain extent
fit instrument in the hands Of designing man. but
destitute of those qualities which might be supposed
tc hare s%ayed the mind controlled the actions
of the person with whom she had an Illicit inter-
course. Had the case been reversed, and she pre-
sened as woman of experience of strength of mind
and energy of character, who had lived unhappily
with her husband, and expressed a determination TO
get rid OF hn-vho had selected as her paramour
youth OF inexperienced, and by the scductrons OF her
person and her fortune, had induced him to commit
the murder, in the exercise of their discretion the
court would not have hesitated address him as wit
ness, and full disclosure of the facts to have re-
commended him to mercy.
Tus case, however very daarent .rc;lns and
the cnur' must say, wtsIher public policy and the
advancement of justice requires that Stabg the PRINCIPAL
shall be admitted TO testify prnd,- "a .--.;-,
do accused, at the hazard Of emitting him pardon
Om the punishment which waits him for the crime no has
committed. Il ne admitted makes full disco-
sre whether the prisoner is convicted nu he has ar
equitable title the incrposnn of the court which unon
their oahs they bound allow: it will 40, then be
matter of discretion with than, bot ground of cnim
which will be irresistible; and hin, to mercy
is rot what the court feel disposed do. This conclusion
therefore, is, that jesse Strhng be admitted as
witness.
The Judge here added remarks to the resnors
bily which had been thrown upon the court nd their
Willingness TO it, notwithstanding exci,enen,
which these trials had excited. They trusted they could
net be influenced by any consideration other than 70 see
the laws faithfully and impa ai!y adminste ed and If ia
the decision they had made, they had erred ,hev ,rood
have the satisfaction Of knowing that they erred on the
side Of mercy.
When the Judge sat down, n expression of anpr,ha
ton, only of the eloquent and feeling in which
the opinion pronounced but probably also Of the
illusions which it arrived, manifested itself t!rouebou
the crowded auditory but mnea, ey nv m
and the officers.
After few moments the district attorney I Lvirs.
on) and Observed that upon consultations with his
associate COUNSEL they had conclusion tina,
from the facts which had already been adduced and the
aiming testimony which il their power to nm,
duCc being Of slight character not ,na,ersl -
affect the the jury would be yvarreu.eA t
viciins tile prisoner and nasmuch under decision Of
the court, tie testimony Srang could not be admitted
they would abandon the prosecution.
Judge Duer. That is in the discretion Of t,e
public prosecutors nd the will attempt to control
him in the exercise of that dsc eion they appris. Tie
public prosecutors that motion had been made bv the
counsel of the prisoner, far discharge on the round of
want of testimony, the motion would have been dsued
II the testimony which remained of slight nature i,
might have been for resting the upon the
evidence already adduced but not for dschagin the pr-
Soner.
District Attorney Under this in:ina,iou from tho court,
without having changed my opinion wish be considered
resting the prosecution and call upon the prisoner fur
her defence.
Ar. Foot. There is difference Of opinion perfectly
"ind and friendly however between the disc, attorney
and myself In consequence Of the suggestions of the
court he row appears to put the prisoner defence
Satisfied, myself that she and ought not TO be-
victed upon the testimony given, and is still in the
power of the pnblit prosecutor TO produce have advised
the prosecution TO be abandoned, ring the
Of the court, only expression of opinion that in
criminal the jury should be permitted 10
the evidence instead of