The Litchfield County post., 1828-09-04
Argus Correspondence continued.
Canandaigua, Thursday, 6 P. M. }
August 81.

AuuACIAncuL dSdluSi DIuCG. uIucI 3dHu DdI"
row, yesterday afternoon at 2. 1t was re-
sumed this morning, at half past 8. Nearly
twenty witnesses have been examined in
chief on the part of the people, and this af-
ternoon Edward Giddings, Editor of the
Anti Masonick Almanack, was offered and
objected to by the defendants counsel, on
the ground that Giddings did not entertain
snch religious opinions as to render him a
competent 0itness. In support of the OBJ
lection one David Morrison was first cal
led,who testified that he was intimately ac-
quainted with Giddings, and had known
him since 1920, and between that and the
year 1926, had frequent conversations with
him, in which he expressed the opinions
that there sOas no God---nothing spiritual
superior to matter, and the existence of a.
God Uas contrary to philosophy. Morrison
produced letter written him by Giddings,
dated goth April, 1927, containing such
sentiments. Several witnesses have been
examined on this question, by the people
and defendants, land Mr.. Marvin is now en-
gagged in arguing the question of admissi-
bility to the court.
9 O'clock, P. M.
After full argument the Court has decided
unanimously that Giddings comes within
the rule which excludes witness upon the
ground of in6delity.
Turner and Barrow will doubtlessly be
acquitted. The testimony against Bruce
is very strong.
These trials excite great interest land for
the first time has there been clear and
legal history ofthe abduction of VIM. Nor
gan.
Canandaigua, Friday, Aug. %
6 O'clock P. M.
The trial of the indictment against OAR
row, Turner, and Bruce, was resumed this
morning at 8 o'clock.
The people having rested, the defend
ants counsel concluded not to call any wit.
nesses. They moved that Bruce be dis
charged, on the ground that this court had
not Jurisdiction of the offence that no act
had been proved against Bruce in the coun-
ty of Ontario: that if he was concerned in
the conspiracy to abduct Morgan, he acted
in the county of Niagara, land could only be
tried ia that county, and not elsewhere
that the indictment charged conspiracy
to kidnap Morgan from Canandaigua, in the
county of Ontario, and transport him to To-
reign parts and places and that the prose-
cution had proved the abduction, land there
fore the conspiracy was merged the con-
summation of its object: that there could
not be an indictment for a conspiracy to
do an unlawful act, the act having been
done: the indictment must be for the act
done and not for The conspiracy. Gener-
al Matthews and Mr.. Griffin argued it We
~ ably for the defendant, Bruce, and Mr..
White & Butler argued in opposition. The
counsel for the people commended that the
indictment lay for the conspiracy that the
overt acts of abduction were proved in ag-
gravation of the offence that the gist of
the indictment lay for combination or con-
federacy; that the conspiracy being form
ed to commit misdemeancr, the doctrine
ofmerger did not apply that the acts of
Bruce in Niagara county being in further
ance of the objects of the conspiracy, he
must be regarded as principal in the con-
spiracy-that all the conspirators might be
tried in the county in which the first overt
act was done, to wit, where Morgan was
first subjected to their power, land where the
conspiracy must have been formed.
The court over-ruled the objection, and
said the cause must go to the jury.
The cause was summed up for tie de-
fendant, and Mr.. Mosely for the people,
and was committed to the jury at 8, P. M.
The court advised the jury that if from the
evidence they were satisfied tina; Bruce
acted in pursuance of conspiracy agains.
Morgan, previously entered into, and to
which he was party they must find YER
dict OF guilty; and if they believed that B.
knew nothing of the conspiracy, but fist
kneso ofthe transportation of Morgan when
ne acted, then they would find him MOI
guilty, because his acts would amount t.
ASSAULT and battery and false imprisonment
in the county Of Niagara, for which n,
could not be convic ed in this county, un.
der This indictment, which was for a con-
splracy to kidnap. The court also advised
the jury that they must be satisfied that M
was in the carriage IN which and on which
Bruce rode, anu that Bruce knew it, anc
further, than Morgan was there agalns. hi,
will, and that Bruce knew that.
Giddings having been rejected as wit