American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1845-02-13

|
Owen Murray--Went to Baltimore witt
Patrick Niece; the officer delivered to wit
ness for Patrick Niece S754.5I; told the pr
soner that he (witness) had got 500 or $500
from the officer; prisoner said that his uncle
ought now to give him some money! and lei
him 90 away.
Cross-eXamined-Pris Prisoners character is vory
good; would trust him now; believes prisoner
TO be an honest man, and that he would not
steal from strangers not related to him.
10 questions put by the Court to witness, he
answered that the prisoner said he thought nc
one had better right than himself to the mo-
ney, and that his uncle did not stand in need
OF 1t. When in Baltimore, witness heard no
thing about note-has heard of it since
William Thompson, Esq, testified that when
the prisoner was brought before him on the
warrant he issued on the complaint of Patrick
Notice. he was much agtated. Witness eau
TONED prisoner that he was not bound to say
any thing to criminatc himself, and then said
to him, ''you aIc charged with having stolen
between $500 and 5000 in money from your
uncle;" he said he took the money; he said no.
thing about note that his uncle had given
him; when the uncle came into the office, he
tell down on his knees, and asked his uncle to
forgive him; prisoner said the magistrate in
Baltimore thought the taking of the money
was only a breach of trust.
Patrick Niece, recalled-Witness never, to
his knowledge, gave prisoner any note; wit
ness cannot write.
Cross-eXamned-Witne never objected to
prisoners leaving witnesses house; witness did
formerly drink too much; did not send for Rus
sell TO draw a note. Russell had lived in
house belonging to witness, and witness turned
him out because he would no pay his rent
Witness had thought of leaving something by
will TO prisoner; but the will, though begun,
was never finished, and witness changed his in
tentlon. Neither before he changed his nten-
ton, nor at any other time, did witness mean
that prisoner should have any OF witnesses pro-
perty till after witnesses DEATH
Questioned by District Attorney-Prisoner
had lived with witness about four months be-
fore the robbery; prisoner was sick during the
greater part of the time, and witness paid his
doctors bills; boarded and clothed him; prison.
er may have cooked little when witness went
to church; prisoner came from Ireland to the
United States about three and half years ago.
when be first came he staid with witness about
SIX months, and occasionally worked in the
garden; the services rendered by the prisoner
during either period of his solouIn at witnesses
house were very trivial; there was never any
contract between witness and prisoner for wa
ges nor for any other sort of compensation;
witness often made prisoner presents of money,
clothes, &c; If an account had been kept be-
tween them, allowing prisoner the most extra
VACANT price Tor his services now alleged, still
the balance would have been largely in wit
ness favor; Prisoner never had, nor ever pre-
tended to have any claim on witness; never
pretended to witness that witness owed him a
dollar for services or for an; thing else; never
made any demand on witness
X. L. hlills-is constable; was employed
to arrest prisoner, after his return from Balti-
more, on warrant charging him with this
theft; witness not knowing the prisoner got Of
hcer Burr to gowith him; prisoner when arrest
ed, asked the witness, whether his uncle had
had him taken up about the money; begged
witness to plead for him with his uncle; the
uncle asked prisoner how he came by the note,
and prisoner denied having any note; as he
went to jail prisoner said it was mere Joke
about the note.
r. r. Barr, constable-Said that after the
prisoners arrest he begged witness to plead
with his uncle for him.
Evidence for the prisoner: Russell testified
that on the esd of November last, prisoner ask
act some business; witness did so; Patrick Nc
Gee told witness that prisoner would tell him
what to do, and went out to attend, as witness
supposes, to his customers; witness drew the
note; the note was here produced and read to
the jury; it is note dated Esd Nov. 1914,
signed +. MCGEE, and promising to pay Owen
Niece, three months after date, sloO0for val
ue received. The body of the note and the
signature are in the handwriting of the witness,
and at the right hand of the signature is mark
rather faint Of cross;] witnesses wife was pre-
sent; another nephew of Patrick Niece, be-
sides the prisoner, was also present; that ne
phew has gone away; Patrick MCGEE gave
him 500.
Cross-examined- Witness drew the note un-
der prisoners direction and read it over TO him
afterwards; Patrick McGeo did not appear TO
be entirely sober, nor yet drunk.
MIR. Berry testified that, on New Years day,
prisoner sent for witness to come to the Jail,
which witness did. Prisoner requested witness
to ask his uncle to liberate him. The uncle
said he had put the prisoner in Jail, not on ac-
count Of the money, but on account Of the
forged note. Prisoner said he would not give
up the note
James Maher, the public gardener, said pri-
soner worked with him, and was honest, indus
trious, sober and obliging. Prisoner had OPP
portunties of stealing from witness and never
stole. Witness considers prisoners character
to be excellent.
Mr.. Linton, counsel for the prisoner, address
cd the jury and remarked that in order to find
the prisoner guilty of larceny, they must be-
ieve he took the money with a felonio,,s in
tent; and here the proof is that he took it un-
der claim of right. "No larceny will there
fore be committed when the goods were taken
on claim of right, however unfounded, &c."
6 Cmtty, Or. l.. 92O.) Mr. Linton contended
it was a doubtful case, and the jury are bound
to acquit, especially as the prisoner has proved
an excellent character.
The District Attorney considered this as
very alarming doctrine. The cases referred to
are cases of claim to specific chattels. But
the annlication of the rule 10 this 10 liahla