Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1837-01-11

The object ofthe testimony of this wit.
ness seems to have been to invalidate
that of Croft.
The Counsel for the prisoner read
the act ofCongress ofl790, called the
statute of limitations, and argued that
three years having elapsed since the
commission ofthe offence charged, the
time Of Limitation being two years, the
prisoner cannot be tried for il. 1t was
argued on the other side, that the pris.
oner having become by the act of lea
wing Washington on the night OF the
fire, a fugitive from justice, tho statute
did not apply. The result ofthe argu-
ment was a charge from the Court
"That ifthe Jury believe that il the
prisoner left the city on the Saturday
when the fire took place in order to
escape detection, then he has a fugitive
from justice, and is not entitled to the
benefit of the act of limitation, but if
they think on his return to the city in
March, 1884, he was not concealing
himself, but could have been arrested
if due diligence had been employed,
then he was not "a fugitive from Justice
and is entitled to be acquitted under
hat act. by this instruction, it is
not necessary that the u. States should
have had knowledge that he was an
offender: he is to be acquitted ifthe ia.
ry think he was not hiding when he
appeared publickly in Washington
Also by this instruction, even if he was
a fugitive in the first instance, yet his
temperance is made to undo his for
mer act of "feeing to avoid detection"
and to place hun under the benefit of
the act as if he never did fee.
Mr.. Brent gladly acceded to the in
struetion in this form. The point in
dispute having o been thus been dis.
posed of Mr.. Brent put lin ON additional
prayer on the part ofhis client, namely,
that "ifthe jury, thought, from the ev-
idonce, that the prisoner was not pro-
we'd to have been present aiding and a.
betting, but absent at the time of setting
fire to the Treasury he was then to be
considered only an accessory before
the fact, and was therefore entitled 10
an acquitlal." This was granted
BY the Court, and thus the prisoner,
by the ingenuity of his counsel, gains
three goo6 chances of escape; LIST The
common chance that the evidence on
the trial may not be strong enough to
convict him. I'd. Should the evidence
be slrong enough to convict him, yet
he must be acquitted under the statute
of limitation, if he BE proved that he
was not a fugitive from justice when he
showed himscIfopenly in Washington.
Sd. If both the above chances should
fall, then, if there is no direct evidence
that he was actually present aiding
and abetting at the fire he is then to
be acquitted, being only an accessory
before the fact.
The Hon. Mr.. Russell, a member of
Congress from New York, was called
as u witness, and testified that the pris-
oner was arrested at Salem, the LIST
September, 1S33-was there tried and
condemned to ten years Imprisonment
in the penitentiary-he remained in
Jail at Salem, N. Y. the fall and winter
oflS33 until he was bailed out in jan
uary or February following. The OBJ
ject of Mr.. RS. testimony was to dis.
credit that of Hicks, who had sworn
that the disclosures to him had been
made in the fall OF 1888, at which time
he was at Salem, and consequently
could rot have made the disclosure as
stated by Hicks in the city N. York.
Mr.. Howard, having been a second
time called, testified that White had re-
turned to Washington in March, 1884,
| which was confirmed by his wife. This
circumstance was argued in proof OF
| Whites not being a fugitive, as argued
by Mr.. Key.
After the testimony was closed the
! several counsel addressed the jury, nf-
ter which, on Saturday, the PANEL re-
tired.
On Wednesday, the jury not being
| able to agree on a verdict, was dis
charged, and the case will be tried o.
yer again.
COURT OF INQUlRY--GEN. SCOTT.
A. H. II