Rutland herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1823-1847, 1837-01-10

wien hfIfNktAs uiN fAaN'" wv
vac 6rt led 10 suspec, the prisoner. and TO orei'
,.,c a nnrsui, after him. Mr B. bad crested IA.
,,p Drew for counterf,tinc, coon after thc burn
inc q the Treasury aud on searching his box, be
discovered a book the corner OF which vas burnt,
uhth be believed to have belonged 10 the Trcasu-
ry. On informing iisys, Of New York, Of this
feet. u. said to him, Depend upon il, # ever us
found oui who burnt the Treasury, II wall Turn out
t. Dee The Whites"
NJ C~srothr,s. tho owner Of tie house in which
Whie resided during hs soiourn at Washington,
testified ~ the renting of the house on the Il %
Now. 1882. and that it was vacated on the 9h
March, 1888. Witness dad not know Whites bn-
] sin,ss Of Washington. bat took him 10 be one Of
". Yak leii,r rrii1s.
For The defence, an attempt vas made to lnvail-
date the testimony Of various Niinesses, which led
TO some a~rcumeu, ; the covnsel for the prosccu-
contendmg that the course proposed would be ~
eject 10 place The witnesses on tial, VIXEN they
were pcrhaps unprcpared, and would also lead TO a
confusion OF Issues. The court concurrcd in tile
view.
Rs,yy Bhiie, Groihcr Of the prisoncr,) was
sworn. lie gave Q description Of the journey Of
his Brother and himself from, Washington On the
..sLt oG SATURDAY 20th March. lie g"o. li- o..
idcucc wlh great n"nchalcacc, iutcrlardcd occa-
/ s,oua'ly with the "slang'' which j. current among
those who have combined against law and against
society. lie contrndjcted the wilucss Croft rs 10
The conversation which the latter had sworn he had
overheard. and related a long story relative to Croft
the purport of which was that he and the Two
Whites had been united in schemes of fraud, aud
had, as it is not ncccod each other
aud that Croft, concelyiog he lad the worst Of it in
the end, had sworn vengeance against lis accom-
plces.
.Nrs Hirkcr, the mother-in-iaw of White, was
called, and it was elected from her that her board
ing-housc in New York was the resort Of several
worthless such as figure in this trial, and that the
cellar contained a furnace, c~rucibles, &c. for coun-
%terfcting half dollars.
The testimony being all taken, the counsel for
he prisoner read the act of Congress Of the 30;h
April, 1896, called the statue Of limitations and
urged that he prisoner could not be Tried for this
offence, because three years haG Elapsed since il
was committed the time Of limitation by the act
q beng two years-that the prisoner did not come
; within the provlso which excluded (lCitives from
= justice, because he had not been a fugitive. having
o lived openly in New York, and having on one oc-
cnsion visited Washington, and walked through
the capitol, the library, &c.
On the other hand, it was contended that The
flight from Washington on the night Of the fire
rendered him a fugitive.
Inc court nnHIly instructed the Jury mat u thel
believed TINT the prisoner left the city on the Sat
urday night when the fire took place in order Il
escape detection, Their he was n fugitive from JUS
tice, and is not entitled to The benefit Of the act o
" Limitation; but if they they think hat, on his re
; turn to the city in March. 1884, he was not con
ccaling himself, but could have been arrested If duo
diligence had been employed. then he was not
fugitive from Justice, and is entitled to be acquit
ted under that act.
MIR Brent (of counsel for 2risoner) gladly acee
. ,d,J To H. s.-s At ~" ~. TAO l"iut II
: dispute having now been thus disposed Of, Mr. b
pot in an additions. prayer on the part Of his client
= namely, that "J The jury thought, from he eUidencc
That he prisoao iCos not proved 10 hare been pres
! eHt 0iifHg and dLeung, bit absent at The time q
selling fire 10 he Treasury he tcas than 10 be con
: Siderod oniy az an accessory after The fact, and w0
therefore enhiad 10 an acquiitai" This was grant
cd by the Court. Thus (says The reporter for th
y lntclugeucer) the prisoner, by the ingenuity Of hi
counsel, gains three good chances of escape Isl
The commun chance, that the evidence on the ir
al may not be strong enough 10 convict him. 9
Should the evidence be strong enouh to conyIc
HIM, yet he must be acquitted under the statue {
/ Limitation, if / be proved that he was not a fug
- tive from justice when he showed himself openly i
Washington. Sd. If both the above chance
should fail, then, If there Is no direct evidence tina
he vas actually present, aiding and %abetting AT III
r fire, he is then to be acquitted. being only an az
[, cessory after the fact.]
Further testimony was taken rs 10 The circuu
- stances ofWhjte's visit to Washington in Marc
II 1891, and as TO whether he remained a day IN "
or proceeded to Leesburg Immediately after h
- arrival. The former wac proved to have been tn
fact.
~ Mr Brent, senior. summed up for the prisoue
. and the effort Is spoken Of as a most mastery on
-"eqaul to the best forensic display Of Broughai
- or Chares Philips"
m Mr. Key s'enor, replied to Mr. Brcat and at
ecuious and able as 'he defence was, II was sirl
and cut Up completely by Mr. Key
The cause was rent to the jury at a late hour O
h 'bc sixth day Of the trial, saturday, 2irl Dcceu
ber) and, nj the lsst advices, they had not ogreo,
., Counsel FOR the prosecution, T.. 5. Key, (dis,ri
Il, auoruey) and J. R. Key, esqrs.
mo- For the prisoner WIN. l.. Brent and r. J. Bre.
esGrs.
" 1syrEcTs OF FOLLY. An awful and hear
"a, rending catastrophe took place at Grcnnyil
ne ). {. about the Sd December. A You1