The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1827-08-15

tx7:t foSSu SOlLS 10 canada with he
! :: i'hess becoming convinced of her gui
/ fortnight. 'D0u'
. Jesse Strang having been offered as wi
ness, Judge Duer pronounced the opinion
.ne court upon the question raised and a
1eo, whether Strang, the principal in III
lgiohy' ana wherewith the accused stoo
ehafged as an accessory, should be admit
yea 10 testify against the accused. ITh
.ooee stated that, upon an examination !
tlie authorities, the court had come TO tn
conclusion, that there was no doubt b.,
!hat a person, though convicted of a crime
- competent witness in all cages nnti
the Judgment upon that conviction ia nro
noanced against him. 1t is not the conyic.
tion, but the judgment, that creates the dis.
aolllty IN such cases.
AS an accomplice, Strang is cornnetent
witness, unless the conviction and ;,,do..
"tent are proved. 1t is not. however
ihatter OF course to admit an offender as ]
WltnesS on the trial of has accornplice. hut
the court viii either admit or disallow snch
evidence, as in their discretion NAV mos,
eH1e g; answer the purposes of Justice.
). MS case, then, addresses itself To the
uiscfetion OF the court; not to their iudo-
,iiehI as 70 the competency of the witness.
LuI 70 .helr discretion whether, on a prin-
cipie OF public policy, and in furtherance of
puoiic Justice, the person convicted shall
I pe permitted to testify against the accused.
II ntfang, the principal in the felony which
iiaS oeen committed, is permitted to testify.
nc ~, wli De entitled to a pardon on the i'm
Pi!eo promise, that, if he makes full and
ialr confession of the whole truth. he shall
nave the benefit of pardon. The JUDGE
mere discussed at some length the prinet-
PIE governing the granting Of pardons in
such cases, and came to the conclusion.
mat, II the convict strictly and amply uer-
formed the condition of the implied nrom-
ise: W., that he told the whole truth 10 the
of the court. whether tba nor
son against whom he testified was convict
ca OF acquitted, he had an equitable claim
upon the court to a recommendation for
mercy, ana a legal claim upon the govern
ment for pardon.
1hese being the general rules applica
oie 10 cases OF this kind, it only remained
10 apply them to the case at bar. From
the evidence before the court, it appeared
that Strang, the principal in this case. med
ltatea the murder he committed for the !
space OF SIX months; that he had an Illicit
intercourse with the prisoner at the bar
lhat ne had expressed himself determined
10 nave her If it cost him his life, and pro- |
posed to take her with him to Canada
nc Is man OF about 30 years of age, not
ietelent IN experience on the contrary,
lrtiuI ana deceptive, passing himself off as
IN unmarried man, and under false and
assumed name. The character in which !
ne appears before the court as to his par
ff Fi 81 wb sjHsshA has been
redt princlpal-not as an instrument used
Dy the prisoner to get rid of her husband.
put as the seducer of the prisoner to OBJ
lam possession of her person and propertv.
The prisoner at the bar appears as younp
poman, now about 25 years of age. mar
led at the early age of IA or Is to her late
lnsoand, possessed of property to a consid
rapie amount; of character light, friyo-
Gus, weak, vain, imprudent and wicked.
hd guilty to certain extent; a fit instru-
aent III the hands of designing man, but
eStltute OF those qualities which mirht he
opposed to have swayed the mind or con-
rolled the actions of the person with whom
he had an Illicit intercourse. Had the
ase been reversed, and she presented as
woman OF experience, of strength of mind
nd energy Of character, who had lived un-
apply with her husband, and expressed a
etermnatlon to get rid of him-Who hadJ
elected as her paramour youth of mex
erence, and by the seductons of her per-
on and. her fortune, had induced him to
ommlt the murder, in the exercise of their
secretion the court would not have hest
ated to address him as Il witness, and, on
full disclosure Of the facts, to have recon-
lended him to mercy. II
This case, however, rests on very differ I
mt grounds and the court must now saw {
1hether public policy and the advancement
justice requires that Srang, the princi- i
al, shall be admitted to testify to produce
he conviction of the accused at the hazard
! emitting him to a pardon from the pun
'hment which awaits him for the crime he j
as committed. The conclusion, therefore, S
J, that Jesse Strang cannot be admitted as
witness.
After few moments the District Attor-
ey Mr.. Livingston) arose and observed, !.
rat, upon consultation with his associate
ounsel, they had come to the conclusion,
lat, from the facts which had already been S
dduced, and the remaining testimony which C
was in their power to produce, being of {
D slight character as not materially to {
feet the case, the jury would not be war
hnted in convicting tho prisoner, and mas
luch as, under the decision of the court,
ne testimony of Strang could not be adj
litted, they would abandon the prosecu-
on.
Upon suggestion of the Judge, howev.
r, the District Attorney consented to let
go to the jury, and put the prisoner on
er defence. ,
Mr.. Van Vechten observed that, after j
ne candid admissions made by the coun- !
81 for the prosecution, the counsel for the 7
risoner would not call any witnesses, t
Rough they had it in their power to shew /
trong explanatory. testimony, and would {
lbmit the case to the charge of the court. /
Judge Duer then submitted the case to
ne consideration of the jury. He caution !