Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1845-01-17

"fP''euf sHCy lCSNcu CH tIc dultioii-
~ OF the State Us. Britt, Sd Vol. Deve-
reux Reports of the Supreme Court. page
l22. That case was this: Britt, The de-
PENDANT, was found in the possession Of
forged order in his own favor. haj presen- !
ted and obtained on it money or goods.
and upon being charged with The forgery,
SAID he had.intended to take up the Or
der before 1t acas discoUered" In this
case. the rule of the COMMITTEE was ap-
Piled by the Court, because, the defendant
did not attempt to account for the way he
acquired the possession, by any accompa-
nying statement of his own, or otherwise;
nor did he impute any other agency or
concurrence than has o,Un in Obtaining ii
on the contrary, he stated, that he intended
to hare taken up tie order before the for
gerry Wos discovered, achich manifested.
that he had come to the possession by has
OaUn act and concurrence,
The next authority cited in argument by
the majority Committee. was tie State as.
Morgan. reported in I'd Vol. Dev. & Bat
page 348. That case shove d that the de-
PENDANT had himself presented forged note
to the Bank at Salem for discount in his
own favor, and had received the money
no statement of the defendant imputed
guilt 10 others. nor circumstance appeared
TO raise Suspicion that any other person
had been concerned in the possession than
the defendant. nor did it appear that any
other person had a motive TO impose i, up
on him. bn. all the evidence manifested.
that he alone forged the order. But even
in that case, the Court in applying the
Committees rule of evidence, said, 1.-The
'torce Of the presumption. depends upon
"he ability Of The accused TO shosy WITH
- EACiLII'Y. the real truth and his
"refusal TO do SO, If there be other CIR
: cu"sstances from sohich 1t may be judg-
: "ed that certainly or PROBABLY his
''possession cas not acquired by has oac,a
taking, then the vhole presumption
'faits.' The case OF The State as. Britt
was decided in June, 1881, the latter case
> in June, 1887.
In very late case decided by the Su-
> preme Court. June, 1912, State Us. Seipio
Smith, 2d Vol. lredell's Rep. page 4O2.
: Judge CASTOR as organ of the Court, lays
down the rule Of evidence truly applicable
to Mr.. Ennet.'s case. Fhe evidence in
$ that case was, tina, one Chambers had had
D his tobacco stolen ON Friday night, that he
II followed the tract Of cart from near his
D tobacco house, to a house Of the defendant
SrlpIo NTH. on the next morning, Satur.
: day-that said house was on Smiths lane
t and within 80 or 100 yards from his dwell
:; ling house. and that on that day (Satur
II day. his tobacro was found in Smiths
q hmise--tIat Smith claimed the tobacco 81
= found in hrs house, as his own, in the pre-
IS sence of Chambers, and stated in wha
J. field it was grown, and that he, Smith, hat
e ordered II to be put in that house. 1t wa:
J. also proved. that Scipio Smiths two sons
IS lived with him at the time. who were joint
II The Judge who tried the cause below, ap
piled to Scipio Smith, the fathers case
D. The rule of law which the Committee have
is applied to Mr.. Ennett' case. All the de
III PENDANTS were convicted: they appealed Il
Is The Supreme Court, and the Suprem
,e Court set aside the verdict against Scipi
IS Smith, the father. Judge CASTOR, win
E. has been truly called "a good man and
: great Judge" delivered the opinion of tn
s. whole Court. He says as follows: "whe
: - we examine the cases, in which such
le presumption has been sanctioned, or con
IN slider the grounds Of reason and expert
r. ence on which the presumption is clear
Id lily warranted we shall find that it apple
m "ONLY, when this possession is ola kind
OF (which manJests that the stolen goods hav
81 come to the possessor by his o,0n act,
T. all events. by HIS UNDOUBTEl
an CONCURRENCE" He then mer
ed lions leading case, stated by that gree
nd and good Judge. Lord Hale, where hors
IN was stolen from A, and that same day
ad was found upon him-B was tried, convi'
g. ted, and hung Cor stealing the horse, on til
ov ground, that being found in possession
a. the horse, and not able to account for
no he must be presumed to be the thief. We
e, shortly after this, e was apprehended al
Ter tried for robbery and convicted; and whe
ed executed. confessed tina, he had stolen Il
of horse for which B was hung, and beir
ed closely pursued. requested B; a stranger
10, him, 10 walk his horse for him while
or turned aside on necessary occasion, al
hit esraped. Here B was hung. because b
il. ing found i'll possession. he could not a
lis count how he come to the possession :
ac- The Jury forgetting that the possession