New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1842-06-14

Z
trunk dated Baltimore, August 3l-the very
day Of the fraud. and lons ettcr ne says he re-
csiycd tho moae7 from Charles + Johnson.
Mr. Whiting went on TO examine the -.ledsed
claim of Edward. Ia wealth and responsibility
saving tina, not .in,e man hid been found 10
acknowledge him a. friend. scarcely a az
acquaintance. Al the testimony brought against
him Is 10 be act aside on tire simple statement OF
a Young girl. who had net judgement enough To
wait single month % ind what Wa the charac-
ter OF the man she wa. asked 20 marry. beior' 'he
pledged herself 20 be- hi- forever. In conclusion.
the District Attorney spoke eloquenty et the right
IT trial by Jury, add # the im confidence always
entertained that a jury would be guided solely by
the evidence adducsd. The honor Of the country.
the administration of public justice. INC pubic
good. and the peace Of the jury themselves. alike
reqsred a careful. cautious decision in this mat
ter. The effort. Of able counsel must not be al
lowed to un.eat the judgement and to destroy
the force Of evidence.
Ii the prisoner thus 20 bc cleared hun
dred- OF cthers-thcir own children-might tecl
cmboldcned 10 follow the example of Edwards.-
The time nigh, once have been when the prisoner
honored the character Of his family bat il was
no, the claims sf Edwards himself but OF ms fam
iy that has brough, around him SO able counsel
was an honorable citizen of Kentucky None such
has been sdduced We nave only proof that he mas
at some time been there But the place OF a mans
residence does not stamp ms character with honor
and make him an csiim.bis member OF commun-
y--nor should this be allowed the slightest weight
in decidin. his fate. Ii the prisoner had been born
and brought up in New-for> his counsel would
never have thought OF Iu>uiyins ms traifc IN
slaves: but because he Is from faXas and because
he comes by way Of kentucky. tins Is held 10 be-
perfectly correct. The letters tn bis friend Wild
Boosting of his 'eminent success that ne had
sl6 600 in his hands, Sc. were next examined and
their true meaning shown. They also clearly eX-
press the real character OF his mind and the true
feelings which mark his coaduct Instead OF the
purity and uprightncss which said to belong TO
him. they show that he was vulgar, heartlc's
brargart
The wandering character of this man-dcyoid
of busincs. ur home-are strong suspicious clrcum-
stances against him; and whea supported By the
strong testimony that fas been submitted, they
were held to be perfectly conclusive.
Mr.. Whiting concluded by citing law to show
the nature OF the proof required in this case ana
to prove that absolute certainty was not required
in this case. twas sufficient he said, It moral
certainty was shown which excluded every reason.
able doubt In submitting the case. he said, IN
had been in earnest because he felt the weight OF
evidence II va. n case of immense importance.
and it could not be a question OF personal triumph
If weight should be given To toe mere ability with
which the case has been defended the foundations
of Justice would " attacked and destroyed. The
prisoner Mas not the only man Interested lhc
character and honor OF the ten men who had stood
here IA witnesses were nj stake. The question
was whether these men, who came here to testify,
should find on their return that their characters we're
blasted and they branded with the mark OF perjury
since twelve men here had refused to believe then
But for the array of talent enlisted In the defence
Mr.. Whiting said he would not have urged the
matter upon them at great length; he should
have felt in so doing that he WAS insulting thclr
judgements. On the strictcxamination he begged
them to give the testimony he felt sure it would
nppear perfectly beautiful and consistent. He felt
sure the jury would agree, and that there would
hc no hesitation after the charge they would soon
receive from the Judge. He begged them at all
events 10 agree. if the evidence was sufficient, on
a conviction, If not on an acquittal.
Mr. PRfeE wished TO correct single error ct
one of the cocnsel il relation to two names having
never been written on the same line III a Hotel
Register except in this single case ct Belchor and
Edwards. He had found several similar instance,
which he mentioned.
After some little rather violent alteration, at
the wish of the Jurors,
The Court adjourned.
Fous O'Clock.
At the opening OF the Court Judge MN
charged the Jury in an address of which The ioi
lowing is the substance
Gerfien7r II the J.rg
The prisoner at the bar stands indicted for iorg-
ing letter aud for utering the forged instrument
The fret count charge. the forging OF the letter o.
Maunse White & Co. to have been done at New
Orleans the second at Newly ork. and the third
uttcring it st New Orleans. There is 30 evidence
,h,, il was forced at New.Oreans, and it is -ate
so to charge. The points will be- then the forging
at Ncw-lork, or the uttering the letter there. 1t
either of these be found. the prisoner Is guilty
The principal point. however, i with regard 10 thr
ultcring the forged letter at New-lork ie"
word. will be said a. to the law, though there ap-
pears to be- but little difference OF opinion as l.
this. BY the law OF 1880 forgery was divided in'e
different degrees. and forgery IN the thrdde.rce i
punishable withimprisonmcnt Tor i've years almost
The finding or uttcring any INSTRUMENT by which
money shall bc fraudulently obtained Is forgery
under thi. definition. Now IL i. conceded that the
letter of Maunscl, White X Co i such forged III
-trument-whereby tie sum OF - 600 was irsu-
dulenrly obtained. And the offence d. the same
whether the prisoner forged the letter or dtered
il knowing it To have been forged. Now utterins
an instrument j. defined by the Supreme Court 10
be any disposal or negotiation ot forged in.tru-
mcni TO any person, tor fraudulent intent.
B There Is one other principle Of law - which !
mu-t advert. To find the prisoner guilty under
the act have referred 10, and on the first count II
would lie necessary to show that the letter wa
forget in the city Of Ne,-York. But a. .ha
show presently. ii it be shown TIA, the forged let
ter was uttered here the offence j. the same IL
the case Of Rathbun il was decided that the crime
Of uttering is no, conPete until the note ha'