American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1844-12-24
BALTIMORE CITY COURT


r., 'hond@, Dec. %, 1914. The case ofthe Rev.
Chas |; Torrey, convicted for abducting three
| slaves, the property Of Mr. Heckrotte of this
| Guy, came mp before this court, on the motion
~ oorilSei LOT an arrest OF judgement and petit
ton for new trial.
keVerdy Johnson, Esq, senior counsel for
'hc oeiehce, IN opening the case, said he had
hothih9 TO urge in reference to a new trial; for.
as far as the evidence went upon which his
client had been convicted, it was of such a cha
racter as to preclude the hope of different rn-
suit II new trial should be granted
In the first place, therefore, he proposed to
examine "the suficiency of the indictments y
Inc counts in the indictments CHARGED the Of.
fence against "Charles T. Torrey," but did net
specify whether he was u freeman or otherwise
as called for by the letter of the law Of 1927
under which he was indicted. The law recog-
hiSihg the broad distinction between freeman
ana slsve-the former being liable to mprisop
liieht' ana The latter to be whipped. The ques-
tloll, he commended, then arose, whether the
court could go out of the indictment in rem
Gefng It's Judgment, affixing the penalty
WIN view to avoid the infringement of the .
l'9hts OF the citizen, it is important that all .
points at issue should be determined bv that fri
oulai supposed to be the most competent to
aecide upon them; and not to leave them to the
discretion OF the court, whose power it is to aE
Tx the penalty. The laws of MARYLAND he
'oh'ehded, properly recognized color as imply
nS slavery; but when it is known that in ma
~ cases the two classes were so intermixed as
o render it impossible, from mere observation
o determine their classification, who was to
eclde to which the prisoner belonged? There
vas no written or other evidence, to show
whether the party involved is a freeman or =,
lave. =" /
MIR. j. suggested that, looking to this view
inc case, jury, IN the case of life and death I
light IND person guilty, under the impress II
on that he was slave, and liable to Danish 1
lent; while at the same time, the Court, be- il
ewing HIM to be freeman, might consipn h
I'M TO death. There might be, he argued, in p
'rVehlng positions between freeman and slave 81
In winch, II free, to be imprisoned; if slave ls
De whipped or banished The province of W
re court was to pass judgment IN accordance
l.n the verdict founded upon the indictment. I'll
Mr.. }. contended that the Court had no pow ST
10 pronounce judgment, under the Cd sec
On OF the act of 1927. 1t was matter for of
G maglstracy. In the distribution of power ca
nong the Courts of the United States, it was vi
ace obligatory that parties suing and bein. sa
ed-or IN other legal action--to set out in the sa
'trument the State to which they respective or
oeiong. 1t was necessary that all points res
ould be definitely averred, and aflirmatvely
Ssed upon by the jury. If, therefore, the Of
soner has been arraigned and tried I'M ii,
: detective Indictment, the Court had no vo
mt to pass sentence. ~
Mr.. J. said he would next proceed to discuss oh,
last question at issue. Atthe time Dilemma In,
Ing the jury, in this case, it was agreed mo
I The prisoner should be allowed the benefit. VIC
found guilty, of contestng the power to hao
d nm responsible for three separate acts of not
nee as contemplated by the States Attor- we,
IN arralgning him under three distinct in fen,
49, te . uoHiou tiie r'ght OF tne Prose- slav
or 10 send IN three indictments They were foo,
"a upon one presentment. That present. T6e
u charged the prisoner with having Cen q
d, persuaded and aided" the slaves at one form
the same time to escape; henca but one of. of ,
Z was committed. In case of ordinary lar cut
Z, Whefe person steals three pieces of the
l-three bank notes-or three watches dot,
Prosecuting Attorney could not arraign law
party for stealing three watches under cond
distinct indictments, for the law recop- of in
1t but as single ofience and MAKING noin
party, upon conviction, liable to the peni, 70 81
airy for ten years. But if it be in the for
Or OF the Prosecuting Attorney to multi ecb
ne indictments, he may be rendered liable Nj
lIrty years imprisonment and thus YOU occ .'
the liberty of citizen at the disposition u la'
g officer and not the law. TIL
ere was another consideration, which he AT
'lved as conclusive upon that point. In Chief
giving. the Prosecuting Attorney power to Civ
iitpiy indictments, when there is but one woult
&c, the rights of the party accused might durin
ea,y endangered, if not seriously abrid O. it wo,
hasmucn' as after party should have soner
itraigned' tired, and acquitted, he might Sh,
,ba oo,,st;..,.: ',",' oeiore new Jury, couns
ha 49, tnssuion declares That mo person He h
oeanoo ! . 10 d second time for the and W
n 49,. A:.. Pteseht case, II Tor some
,ndor tho p.ps0. W 'he jury who tried good
MD hano $50 Attorneys, opinion, declai
"'S ''"'' ''0" put upon another trial; has 70