Western courier. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1837-1838, 1837-10-12

BIERcE q NEWTON, for the State.
CAkTrER& SILLIMAN, u the Defend
ant.
This was very interesting case. The
prisoner was indicted jointly with his son,
for the murd>r of another sons wife. AZ
ter u tedious investigation Of two days,the
jury returned verdict of Nor Gu1LTY.
The State Of Ohio, For the Murder Of
vs. Catharine Mckis>
David McKisson, son, the wife oil De-
PENDANTS brother.
BIERcE g. NEWTON, for the State.
HUMPHREY, SpALDlNG IL TOP, f!r the
Defendants.
-. The prisoner was indicted jointly with
his father for the murder Of his broiher's
wife, but the Court granted them separate
trials. The trial occupied two days.
The Jury after retirement of about Two
~ hours returned with verdict of Gully
of Murder in the first degree.
The testimony in the case was mainly
circumstantial but Of nature 10 force
conviction Of the guilt of the prisoner on
every mind The Counsel for the pris-
oner did every thing that men could do,
for him-and if talent and skill could
have changed the result, it would have
been changed; no legal point was left un-
tried. The arguments 70 the jury by the
counsel on both sides we'e ably and forci-
bly, made. and they reflect great credit
upon the gentlemen engaged. Such an
array of talent, skill, and legal knowl-
edge cannot probably be found in the
State. Judge Humphrey did himself great
honor in the charge to the Jury and in de-
livcring the sentence ofthe Court. After
the verdict of the Jury had been pronoun-
.-ced. the prisoner arose and addressed the
audience, strongly declaring his inno-
cence Of the crime. When he first rose
il was with some difficulty that he could
ID speak. but before he closed. his voice be-
came stronger and he proceeded with
frmness; he spoke about five minutes, and
his remarks seemed to have great effect
upon the immense concourse of people
present and upon the Court. After the
prisoner set down Mr.. Tod made mo.
tion for new trial which was over.
ruled. After the motion for new trial
was overruled the prisoner again arose
and in clearer and stronger voice de-
c'ared himself innocent, charging another
with the crime and accusing witnesses Of
f,!sehood & ofmisrepresen'ing facts. BY
his voice and gestures he indicated, not
remorse and grief, but anger, and rather
] in tone Of defiance expressed himself
ready to receive his sentence.
II wds with some difficulty that Judge
Humphrey delivered the sentence Of the
Court. Although his voice was firm and
distinct, yet by the "iear Of compassion"
which g!istened in his eye, it was plain
that the struggle was great within.
He was sentenced 10 be hung on the
? 9th day of February 1888.
Thc State. VS.. Stephen Price; Grand
Larceny. Plea not Guilty.
FIERCE & lNGERsoLL, for the State.
CARTIER & SILLIMAN, for the Defend
ant.
Verd ct, Guilty. Sentenced to the
Penitentiary at hard labor 8 years.
IA Th, State VS.. Robert Wilson, Grand
l larceny. Pea, Guilty. Sentenced to
J the Peuiten,iary at hard labor 8 years.
The Safe vs. N,th .niel Corbett. For
g,ry; Verdict not Guilty.
The S ,tt, VS.. Will I'm Peters, Burgla
ry; Plea guilty. Sentenced to the Peni-
teniiary 5 years at hard labor.
The SI;te VS.. John Elgct. Resisting
Constable-Plca guilty. Fine $25.
Much business remained on the docket
untouched.