The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-04-01
Trial OF "Big Thunder" tho Anti-Rcnter
at Hudson.
Court or Oyer and Tcrminer.
SATURDAY, Z O'Clock, r. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.

Court OF Oyer and Terminer.
SATURDAY, O'Clock, p M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
dense crowd filed the Court room fully half an hour
before the Judges took their large number of la
dies among the rest, for whom convenient places
0y o. ~ os
every thing showed that the charge of Judge Parker
the Jury looked forward to with intense interest,"
given him great pleasure bear witness to the prompt
ude and faithful attention they had given to this case
70 ts e1
their duty. The duty which devolved upon them was
most imPortantof vast consequence to their conscen
to the public considered with reference to the excite
ment that pervaded the country. II i'm
potant trial. both to the prisoner whose liberty was at
established the awshoud be enforced and that the should
that be not overthrown but sustained
ted to protect their families their persons and their pro
perty He doubted not that they he Jurv) would
come to their task fully sensible of their respor siby
The prisoner stood indicted for the serious crime Of rob-
this country Robbery the violent taking from the
person q another his property BY superior force and
crime Of great magnitude; but in the before them
act Of robbery- be proved such-on one Of the high
his person Of the laws Of the country under whose
authority he acts In the discussion Of this case, two
considerations would arise6rst has act Of robbery
been committed and secondly has been committed by
the prisoner at the bar 1t Is conceded by counsel for
prisoner that offence has been committed The Sheriff
has related to you minuely all the circumstances OF this
crime and his deputy, Walter Shaver has given his
sion ofthe transaction more particularly to what
said tnan done, from all which testimony could
doubt that the Sheriff had been resisted in the execution
of the law and the only question next did the act
committed constitute robbery There question Of
lar attention of the jury Robbery defined in the sta
tue in this language every person who shall be
VIC, ycted h taking the pssons Of sno
will by violence to his person. by putting person
in fear Of immediate injury his person, shall be
the papers taken the property Of the Sheriff. must
DC shown by the prosecution they were taken against
his will which they had the whole testimony Of the
Sheriff and Walter Shaw and it matter Of indif
terence which Of them, although differing in parti
cslar they should adopt; could hardly for momen.
n possession. and employed in his duty, Went out
tSsro with the disposition to give them up. It
unwniingiy and none had been offered by the defence
in any way going to show why he delivered his papers
not BY reason Of force on this occasion But is also
necessary to show that these were property such
the statute defines be the subject of robbery Judge
Parker here read that part of the statute bearing upon
distress warrants and declaration he had to The
object Of the statute was to explain all things that could
ID
evidences of his authority to SELL in the opinion Of the
Court they were property and he had right to retain
right under which he might sustain an action If the pro
perry seized to be sold taken away is the opinion
,s hs " tn that ss:s within
stated by prisoners counsel that they the jury)
judges Of the law well OF fact and also that was
the duty OF the Court to state its views Ct the law but if
should be mistaken in thosevews they had but be
regulated by their judgments The Court then has
only to express the opinion Of which it has little doubt
that the taking Of the Shers papers beyond ques
ton robbery. By far the most important question for
your elaboration is this offence committed by the
had been committed. The Sheriff went out to Copake to
discharge his duty-was surrounded BY armed men, who
presented at him pistols and swords and it maered but
little at what point Of time he consented 10 yield the m
pcrs they were yielded through fear Of the force
rounding him., and in consequence Of the claim made
the prisoner the bar who perpetratsd the rob-
beryt was not Necessary to sustain this action prove
that he the who held the sword and pointed the
pistol at the Sheriff; for If he was Of them he
just guilty il he had done with his own hand but
must be clearly proved that he participated in IT, and if
they had any reasonable doubt IN their minds they
to give the prisoner the benefit Of and acQu hm bat
they would violate their oahs If they did not weigh the
evidence and convince their minds as to the charge He
did not PROPOSE at that late hour Of the night and after
such long trial. to call their attention infinitely to the
testimony that had been adduced both sdes but mere
anime the very fill summing up Of counsel on both sides
whoever did the act was disguised and II therefore
very difficult to come at who did it, lrhe Judge here en-.
tered into recapiuation Of the leading and
al parts Of the testimony, in explicit and con
tnued) is alleged bv the defence that the want Of
similarity between Big Thunder at Smokey Hollow and
Big Thunder Copake is to be attended to- and much
evidence was adduced to they not the
person. Some had said one was larger and taller than the
prisoner at the bar from two to four inches This
by counsel for the prosecution by saying that in that dis
guse he would appear taller then in ordinary dress this
matter for the consideration Of the jury The pri
soners counsel had further adduced testimony
that prisoner not Big Thunder when the papers
taken from the fact that at the time that chief in
the ring DR.. Boughton was in citizens dress,
standing in near the tavern. This
important point and should be looked for If we're
proved would be conclusive the mind but it met
by the prosecution who say that either other per-
had assumed the character Of Big Thunder or that
witness had been mistaken in saying he had DR..
Boughton At and the time with Big Thunder.
These would require close consideration the Court
would not express opinion but leave to them to get
at the facts a. well they could from the evidence
Among Others perhaps the strongest fact the part Of
the prosecution that prisoner to Bsin's with
Beldng staid night breakfssted next morning. and
not till after dinner after that time he was
SEEM and was strong fact that prisoner had not
counted for himself during tho ntervsl 1t was strange
that nobody wss produced to prove they had him d
ring the time the outrage occurred and is regarded by
the prosecution az in the power and the duty Of the pr
to decide this important question: and their minds
must be satisfied that the prisoner the called
Thunder on that occasion before they could nd him
guilty and the bound make out their
strongly. a. they he jury to give him the
benefit Of any doubt they could convict him In de-
Gliding this question he cautioned them lay aside all
sympathy. There might be some among them who had
guarded against. On The other hand there might be
gentlemen on that jury who felt strongly on the
question that gave rise to these prosecutions They
had already been told that these matters had nothing
vestgated without the Law being violated The law was
necessary to the tenant az the landlord, and if
any entered tho jury box with personal feelings in
the matter II would be his duty to discharge from his
ton Of fact belonged exclusively to the jury and was
question OF extr eme importance. He hoped they would
agree on verdict Many considerations made it de