Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1832-02-18

ia England. and said he would agree to the ar
raneement if the money were paid to himself or
his wife Margaret. He signed the paper and
administered the oath very improperly. gave
him the paper to procure the signatures o tne
others. and went with him TO Burnard's mouse TOT
that purpose Burnard and Margaret were ao'
sent, but found them in Bleecker street. "he'g
administered the oath to them. Inc paper
very indiscrectly left 10 their hands Inc next
night met Margaret and her husband 10 b'eeck'
er street. where Margaret said she haa never
agreed to take lees than 500 dollars, and thae u
did not value my reputation al more 'nan ioo'
she would publish, It through the city. 'nele.
upon said il they wanted money, they must ge' "
as they could, and left them.
The next morning called on Robert Lenox'
an elder in nv church, and made known the
whole affair to him, who said that every inteiii-
gen, man would fully appreciate my motives
Mr.. P. stated that alter another interview win
Aynew in which he threatened prosecution, ne
requested him to meet him with friend. In
pursuance of the advice Of Mr.. Lenox. went to
Hugh Maxwell, Esq, and was induced by his ad-
vice to consider the matter as an offence against
the laws.
MIR. Maxwell, said Mr.. P. came to my house
and met Agnew and his wife, who showed HIN
the paper had drawn, and said they had come
to receive the 1890. Mr. Maxwell told them
they we're infamous characters, and deserved to
be sent to the Penitentiary. The same evening
made my affidavit that the charge was utterly
false, and the next morning proceeded to the po-
lice office and tuok my oath. That oath repeat
ed before the Grand Jury. and now declare IN
the presence Of this Court and numerous assem-.
bIy, and in the presence Of my God, that the
charge is utterly false.
Mr.. Philips underwent long and close exam
nation from Mr.. Selden, but as it elected MOTH
ing favorable to the defence. we do not deem IT
worth while to publish it. At the conclusion OF
it.. Mr.. SeIden produced in. evidence the follow
ing paper. which is the one spoken of by Mr-Phil-
lips as having been drawn up by him for the sig
nature Of the different parties:
do hereby solemnly swear that the only per-
sons tn whom have mentioned the alleged insult
offered me by w. w. Philips, are the following,
viz: James Graham. Jane Graham. George Gra-
ham, Alfred Burnard. Jane Burnard, Mary Ora
ham, Andrew Agnew, nv husband, and Jacob
Dutch: and do now solemnly swear that will
not again at anv time, nor under any circum-
stances, speak Of said insult to any person. nor
answer any questions respecting it. nor use any
sign. nor insinuations calculated to excite sus-
picions. prejudces or unfavorable impressions
respecting his character, So hell me God
MARGARET GRAHAM,
Wife of Andrew Agnew. her mark
Sworn aud signed in the presence of Alfred
Burn ard, Jane Burnard, James Graham, Jane
| Graham.
We do solemnly swear, that we will never
hereafter speak Of, or write concerning the trans
actions said to have taken place between w. w.
Phillips and Margaret Graham, wife Of Andrew
Agnew, to any person or persons, nor on any DC
casicn whatever; and we do hereby bind our.
selves with an oath never to divulge the transac-
tions of this evening, under the penalty Of the
just charge Of perjury and Of forfeitng the sum
of 500 dollars.
So helm me God Alfred Burnard,
So help me God tJane Bnrnard,
So help me God George Graham
SO help me God 7 Mary Graham.
Sworn and signed this 18th day Of December,
1881. ~
The affidavit of Margaret Agnew. made in the
Police Office on the 9th Of January, 1882, was
then read bv the District Attorney. 1t charged
Mr.. P. with the actual preparation OF the out.
rage, and that it was effected by violence and
force.
The affidavit of Andrew Agnew was also read,
in which he charged Mr.. r with having had cr''
minal conversation with his wife, and laid the
udmdSc d. OoooO' -. =,
The prosecution having rested. Mr.. Selden
moved that Jane Burnard be discharged from the
indictment, on the ground that no evidence had
been given to connect her with the transaction.
There was no evidence, he contended. to put her
upon her trial, except that she was present and
subscribed the paper.
The Court denied theIaPPlication. The Jury
were the proper judges Of the testimony, and to
dis< harpe her when there was no evidence that
she was party, would be usurpation OF their
rights.
Mr. Selden then said he would sum up to the
jury in her case.
MIR. Hoffman replied that the whole testimony
must be considered as closed.
Mr.. Seldcn averred that, BY the Revised Sta
tutes he was entitled to the right OF decision IN
the case OF James Burnard before he offered any
testimony in defence Of the others.
The Recorder. The whole cause must 60 to
the jury together. They have that right BY the
law and By the Constitution.
Mr. Seiden observed that under that decision
he would not 20 into the defence, but would pro-