The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-02-13

The Attorney General consented as to Dr. Hough, but
as to Carter.
The Jury accordingly returned verdict Of guilty
to Amos Hourh
Mr. Benamin now made the melton submit the of
Mr.. Carter The Attorney General objected, and said be
knew Of no authority TO justify the notion Mr. Benjamin
said he might reort The chargeof ignorance of criminal law
the Attorney General He read from authorities directly to
the point.
Mr. Emoy thought there evidence against Carter and
M. Grymes closed the argument on the motion.
a5gS%fn OF the Attorney General : one 40 eqnre
to argue the cause twice. he objects to enforcement Of the
law We learn thathe rights Of the eitzeRdepend
The Judge refused The motion. He prepared
ma ~ there was no EVIDENCE against Mr. GaTsr .,o ~
j. B. Chandler to r. NJ Carter auhosing him settle the
We 4Hs show a Il he pape
Of this muaed record We shall prove that Chandler
show that the debt of Merle, Beye Co. was Just
MI. Upton opened his own case Hehad honest andius
claim put IN his hands for collection That when me executor
lean: ben VW Within s AN bouT ar two sfeF rs Hing he herr
with Mr.. Carter, him and allowed his debt AT that
At his pont he 4 Rorney General stopped him on the
ground that he stating matters which rested only in his
Mr., o. met with much difficulty in the progress ofhs
Ma ET4YE was eleiS for Mr. Garter; knew that Chan
der frequently examined the tabeau, and was anxious that
to the Office al day long Re seemed to understand
Cross copy Of the tabeau which Mr..
Chandler familiar with Mr.. Benjamin asked him
afterwards consolidated in the Iableau. These items CORES
ponded with the items OF the abea and Were seen every day
Mr.. Prior is clerk at the Citizens Bank; at the time Of
the death OF Mrs Banner was CLERK Of Mr. HeTmaq9 He
her son. T. Chandler would be OF age n May lS4 After
tae he to understand the business and was anxious
Mr. FREupSNrHAL-Iso one of the firm of Merle, Beyle &
Co. The claim of the firm against Mrs Bannster was placed
in Mr. Upton's hands TWAS the exact sum due He te
off
Cross epGmiasd- placed in the hands of Mr. Upton
lime IN the year s As P BsDnseF died after his wifs
supposed he had interest in her succession Mr.. Ban
Mr. PITor, recalled for the deenee.The money was all
received by Mr. Hermann and paid out BY him. Neither
Mr. LucIEN HERMASS.IWas the Notary employed 3 !, in
hands and paid ont by me- Chandler, | believe, knew all
a u gf hS a e sy f01nS su a b con
ton of the estate portion of the estate was sequestered in
Cross-eramiued- Chandler knew | believe Merle Beyle
n Co. had claim against the estate.
Mr.. Benjamin Offered mortgage executed by j. B. Chand
e October H. 1s47 for $780, to Loss and to Dr. Hougl
for $1,000.
Ma. j. G. HowARD.-Is attorney; testified that he hac
the mortgage of October IL, lS47, which is unpaid.
The evidence closed at 5 O'Clock.
The Attorney General delivered one OF his usual speeches
which occupied over an hour.
Mr. Grymes disturbed heumber of the Jury by stating
tlat counsel would not argue the
to the Jury, would ask the Court give instructions
list That the prosecution was based Section 20 the Ac
otlSl5, (already quoied)
ID, That this section applied only the alteration deiace
ment OF records other than Judicial records
3D.. That the 18th section alone applied to the alteration
judicial records, and that constitute the offence under tina
section, for the State to age aud tina
by Of said deacemen Judgment has been reversed
made void taken effect that there being allegation
and proof Of such consequence verdict could be
deret against the tTayerseTs.
4h. That constitute the offence it be shown tina
the act was committed with the intent to deTaud the persO
named in the indictment as the injured party.
The Court gave all the charges asked by the defendants an
the jury returned verdict of s. Not Gulty.''
of justice the accused say that they refused
avail themselves OF technical deience which the
presented When the mutaed record rejected, and tn
Court forced the Attorney General proceed and refuses
him to enter mol Dr0S at that period they might have ha
verdict, but they would not accept of " Old Bailey &C
quitta. They withdrew their objection, and allowed tn
State make ont icase. They refused to plead prescription
which complete bar The charge of defrauding Chand
Ter is involved in civil suit with which we bay
nothing 10 do BUTT clear from the evidence that the pan
ties not guilty within the letter spirit of the act