Wilmington expositor. (Wilmington, Del.) 1831-18??, 1832-03-30


a .vor, as 1t is called, on the ground that he va
: not impartial; that he belonged to a secret soc
Lefty, called free-masons, of which the defenc
, ant was also member, and that they had I:
: ken oaths which bound them TO assist each {
ither in every extremity. Triers were appointe
elby the court; witnesses were called to prov
the masonic obligations, and among others tn
Juror himself was examined After long ir
Ivestigation and discussion by counsel, the IL
ror was rejected. Another juror, by the nam
lof John Dolly, was soon after called, and chal
Ilenged for favor on the same ground. A dos
Iperate effort was made, by the counsel for tn
prisoner, to procure the admission of this Juror
ne trlers were agreed upon by the counsel Oh
jboth sides, and appointed by the court. TIL
masonic oaths and obligations, up to, and in
cluding that OF the royal arch companion, wer
proved by the most respectable witnesses; an,
they appeared to be precisely those revealed b,
William Morgan, and the lie Roy convention
4 OF seeding masons, and which are contained il
Demands Light on Masonry. In order to i'm
pair the effect of this testimony, the counse
Tor the defendant called William w. Ruggles
a master OF lodge, an adhering mason, ant
one of the counsel for the defendant, and en-.
deavored to show, BY him, that lectures were
given IN the lodge, explanatory and qualifying
the obligations. This attempt was an entire
failure; but the witness was compelled, in the
course OF his testimony, to repeat the oaths; &
ne confirmed the witnesses on the part of the
prosecution, particularly that the master ma
sons oath contained an obligation to keep the
secrets of a brother, with the exception of muir
der and treason; and that the oath of royal
arch companion contain'd promise to espouse
the cause Of brother engaged in any quarrel
Tor difficulty so far as to extricate him from the
same, whether he was right or wrong. After
severe and obstinate contest, this Juror was
lalso rejected by the triers. The trial proceed
led, and the fact that Mather, the defendant. a
respectable farmer, had himself, turned hack
ldrlver, and drove the carriage containing Nor
Igan through the county of Orleans, was abund-
Iantly proved. From the difficulty of extract
Iing-t facts from the witnesses, the point that
Morgan was forcibly carried away with the
knowledge of Mather, depended on the cir
Icumstances of the case, which, although thew
were strong, and would have been abundant in
an ordinary cause, were deemed not conclusive
In addition to this, the Judge charged the iu-
ry enormously on a point of law, as was after
wards determined by the Supreme Court and
the defendant was acquitted. In the trial of the
cause, witness, who was royal arch compa-
mon, and who resided in distant and remote
part OF the state testified, that after some of the
prosecutions had been commenced, Mather an
piled TO the chapter where the witness resided.
for funds to relieve and defend Bruce and his
associates, Ihe witness could not, or would
not relate the result ofthe application. In the
course of this trial, William p, Daniels was EN-
amined as witness. He was a freemason. and
came into the court attended by counsel.
to whom he resortcd, when a question was as
ked him, to advise him whether to answer it or
not At several times declined answering ques-
tons; and. on one occasion, persisted in his re-
fusal until the order for his commitment was al
most completed, when he relented. But he was
Excused from answering some important Dues
tons, on the ground that by answering he w'd
|criminate HIMSELF At one time, he refer'd to
a written memorandum, and read from it his
answer to question that had been press'd IN
on him; upon inquiry. he stated that the memo
randum had been prepared for him by his coun-
sell!
AT the erisuing term of the Supreme court.
IN january, 1880, the exceptions which had
been ta'~', 70 the charge of the Judge in Math-
er's case, were argue,', and in the ensuing lfay,
that court decided that the Judge had been in
error; but Tor some reason, which it would be
difficult to state, the court refused to direct
n
the same term of the Supreme Court, Simeon
b. Jewett (who had been INDUCED with that
time for pleading to his indictment) interposed
plea, that one of the grand Jurors who found
the bill had not the requisite property qualifi-
cation. A motion was made to over-rule this
plea as frivolous. The court expressed its i'm
preston that the plea was bad. but refused the
motion to over-rule it, for the purpose of ena-
bling the defendant to place it upon record.
1t was then demurred to: the demurrer was ar
gucd in the succeeding MAY term: and nine
months afterwards, in January, 1881, the court
formally decided that the plea was bad. In that
state the Indictment still remains.
I'm April 1880, preparations were made for
trying indictments in the county of Niagara,
but the judge refused to try them.
(To b. COntinued.)