The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-05-26

performance
which he was engaged and the unfortunate man
at the knew there no person in the community
who bears him higher regard than the individual
Who addresses them They had been already In
formed that it the Developments which were open
ed last fall which led to the present prosecution His
(Mr. G's) connection with the prosecution. which he
ne had by that been brought into the prosecution of
the present case against man who in former years
his associate and friend Having further alluded
to Observation-Disclosures Of his position aud passed COM
plment upon the ability of the prisoners counsel Mr.
Graham said that the counsel for the prosecution
would BIZ recreant to their oaths if they allowed them
selves be influenced by any considerations Of per-
sonal or private sympathy. Throughout the progress
the trial they had beard motives assigned for this
prosecution-they had heard the deience-but until
the moment that it became his duty to address them
they had not heard the theory of the prosecutions
and when IL had been suggested by of the jury
that they should be allowed to confer before
the case was fully submitted to them, the oouH-
sci for the prosecution considered they should have
been recreant to their public duty, If they had
failed to present before them the grounds upon
tanned. After he had performed his duty, it would
be the duty of the Court to expound the law
without any opinion upon the merits of the 1t
would be- then the duty Of the jury to retire to their
and deliberate upon the facts, not as his learned
friend Mr. Clark suggested, to come to aconcusion
without retiring from their seats but to deliberate in
their upon all the facts that have been laid before
them lie would proceed to perform his duty, not to
excite their prejudces, IT, perchance, they had any,
hut TO present the facts as they had appeared in
evidence. and to suggest such conclusions he
conceived are deducible from these facts Counsel
then defined the duties of public prosecutor within
the bounds of which he trusted he should
confpe himself 1t has been stated that this is
an indictment arising out Of the investigation of
other crimes, alleged crimes As these successive
indictments have come for trial-and this Is the
fourh- has been the effort OF the defence to fastcn
the crime upon another man. The defence in Drury's
trial was, that Thompson was the guilty one. Case
tried. and Thompson was charged by the defence
as the perpetrator of the crime. Ashley indicted
and tried and his offence was attempted to be fastened
upon Thorn pson and now. the fourth trial. SIR Benefits
indicted and Thompson also charged the perpetra-
tor of le Thompson a nei
boring county and upon the testimony of all those
psrtes who accuse him. and who we're examined
him. The defence here had got up collate-
raj issue, from the very beginning of their
for the prisoner They had been told a great deal
about conspiracy; and his learned friend (Mr Blac)
had gone Of the in aspersing parties who
do bear any part in the prosecution IL charged
conspiracy on the spart'of Thompson. and Mr..
Wilkes. OF the Police Gazette, and others he (r
Graham) thought he was going to be included HIM
selt-as having been instrumental in getting up a
conspiracy. Suppose there was conspiracy here by
counsel or any other person had they the part of
the asked the jury to take away fact
against the prisoner that his own counsel in his de-
fence has not been compelled TO admit true! 1t is
than all to assert that base motives have entered
into the minds of persons who are charged as being
behind the They 0he jury We're to throw out
all exraneous matter and come to such conclusions
as state will warrant The only Legitimate
inquiry is whether the prosecution rely upon state
of facts from which the conclusion irresistb'y lows
that the prisoner is guilty and no matter how their
sympathies may have been enlisted they must render
such verdict their oaths and conscenees require
The indictment contains two counts; first it charges
Bennett with having forged the note; and, second,
with having uttered 1t, knowing 1t to be forged
both of which are equally punishable. They
would see that all the legitimate evidence
for the defence does not bear upon these
counts All the defence seems to, be that Bennett did
not forge the note-that Thompson did 1t. Suppose
the prosec ution admit that Thompson did actually
forge the note if they had put Thompson on the
stand to prove that he did that would not prove
that Mr. bennet did not utter the note knowing it to
be forged is alleged that Mr. Bennett has provedtn
exemplary h eea .as s
forging a bond Of 81 COO and several other cases, in
which accused parties had proved high moral
and excellent characters. The fact undenis BILE
that in 1s49, Mr.. Bennett was in straitened circum-
stances and unable to pay the interest on bond then
due and that during that year Mr. Foster in the
prompt payment Of the bond. On the 10th November
note for 5000 makes its appearance. There was a
Bennett and the forgery committed paper SINH
lar to that used by Mr.. Foster In his letters to Mr.
Bennett; his writing had been extracted ana the body
OF the note written over his name. Mr. Graham then
commenced reading the testimony Of Mr.. Byrnc.
Mr. Clarke-Is that from the Police Gazette
Mr. Graham-It Is not 1 read 1t as my own notes,
and when do it is sufficient guarantee that believe
1t to be correct. Mr. O. having read the testimony,
said-I read from the Herald, which believe to be
correct report the proceedings Counsel then conf
mentod on the evidence, as he read it. twas an ex.
traorainary inquiry Of Mr.. Bennett to make Of Mr..
B,rne. he tells pyInes that note will probably come
from the South the West and asks him VIII he be
willing to prosecute The theory OF the prosecution
Bennett was but putting fcclcr to Mr.. Byrnes. Mr.
Foster bad been residing in New Orleans and II was
sided. and hence 1t was dated New York, Novcm-
Der cih. at which period he was here, aud
the note was made TO run for twelve months
Mr. Gfahem then convassed the testimony Of
Ashley, at present convicted but not yet sentenced
for forgery; but 1t did not matter how many
cerned with Bennett in the concoction Of the note.
Throw Thompson in, and II does not Mr. Bennett
50 that Ashley proves n deal too much or too little
Everything points directly to Bennes's knowedSe Of
a rational on the jury who could fail to see the
correction between the creation OF the note and the
counsel then alluded to Bennets anxiety about the
andhis desire get IL back from Byrnes; and his
handing him letter Of MT Foster as n TO convince
the 50 COO On the 9th jan there appeared In the pa
pers circumsantal account Of the particular forgery
now charged upon Mr. Bennct; on the Ith he (BenneD
calls upon Byrnes and endeavors TO get IL from him Mr.
Graham then entered int the defence of the conduct
Of Mr. Pyrnes as n lawyer, aud said that the duties OF
the profession did not eonjoin secrecy Of communica-
tions preceding leading TO crime This evidence
established beyond all probability that Bennett knewof
the existence II the note. and party TO its illegal
uttering The defence docs not take Bennett out Of
the transaction II fact, that neither Ashley
Thompson any one else but Bennet had any
VIBRATION with Dyfnos the subject Of the note They
say that Thompson was the guilty party. and that
Bennet was the dupe In the negotiation. The theory
&c.is q conspiracy. more gross and vanton attack
than had be- made upon Mr. likes never uttered
in court Of justice; he r % was not there ~ the
defend.r Of Mr. wilkes: but he would be recres Mt 10
he duty II he did not ak the jury TO declare that
more wanton attack was new made. than that upon
Mr. wilkes lie Is charged as the author Of this pro-
s,cutic with conspirscywth getting Thompson first
70 commit crime. for the unnsmesbe offence Of en-
trar pin this unfortunate man. They had heard as
scrt.ons but where the proofs Counsel then
tered into explanation Of how Mr. wilkes interfercd
aud his receiving anonymous letter, which INDUCED
him 10 call upon the Mayor. Mr.. Graham also
passed high euogium upon the able aud
honorable manner In which the prosecution had
been instituted by the District Attorney the
was presented 10 the jury upon the same evidence
was sdduccd before the Grand Jury they had not
produced Of the rascals las they had been tcrmed
10 support the and they did not intend % do
in any of the series 81 trials which 90 follow.
Mr. Graham then read and reviewed the testimony Of
the witness Piel who formerly IN the employ Of
Mr. Warner and Is nov engaged in copying conhden-
tal papers fer Mr.. Drury. Aud Ashley would have
them believe that Bennett undertook the negotiation of
the note for promise Of commission on the amount
such note was enough 20 put any one. but down
light idiot upon his suspicious Beuuet knew Thompson
a villain, who had threatened TO burn down his
house aud with all this knowledre he IN sertook to
negotiate this note for him II they told 90 Of
hoy OF 10 years Of would they believe u Would
they believe ID of a shrsw clever man who IL over