The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-05-07
The Drury Case.

charge OF the Court without any summing up by coun-
sci either side il being well understood that the jury
prepared to enter protect against any speeches
being made by either prosecution defence The
was given 70 th'-1ry about o'clock + NJ Some OF the
twelve for keeping their seats and delivering their
verdict the spot but finally concluded 10 retire Az
ter absence II twenty minutes they returned into
court with verdict Of not guilty The following are the
James A Bennett called and sworn for the defence--I
know Mr. Drury: he was at my place, at New Utrecht
in reference to loan; he introduced by
Thompson, was an applicant for loan.
CrosseNanincd.-l don't rccoilect thst Mr. Drury
AT my place but that once; may have him at
Dir Byrnes Office afterwards in reference to the osn
a man AT Thompsons, known Fields; don't know
that young Samuel Drury at my place; want
il distinctly understood that know nothing about Dru
~ good or bad; only knew him through Thompson,
know nothing about Wilkes
The defence here closed.
Se,ah b Carl called and by the prosecution.-It
was proposed 10 prove 10y this witness that while young
Thompson visited him This was ruled out-witness
stated tina; young Drury and another young man
to his house in December ISIS; Of them left in Jan
usIy. and the other in February; Thompson
there 10 my knowledge.
Robert Rice sworn-I reside in Brooklyn. and a
druggist at the of Myrtle avenue
Cs-l street: knew VIM. IL. Thompson; had known him
three four months before he died. lie called in my
place 70 buy drugs on several OCCASIONS remember
ThCmpson calling at my place evening in company
with officer Clark Of New York; two evenings be-
fore that Thompson called at my place either . minutes
past seven or y minutes to eight o'clock think was
Cro.s-examincd-I have been in Brooklyn several
years. 4 knew thompson three or tour months was
not intimate with him. only friendly to him as
might b. TO any who left good deal Of money my
place. This cross-examination proved that Thompson
called The Witness attention TO his clock.
Sidney Clayton sworn-I was. in 1873 10, and 80.
Mayors Marshal in Brooklyn; appointed a deputy
sheriff in the latter part Of August last knew VIM H.
Thompson; | went to the Essex Market prison after
Them sons arrest he dead at the time went there
saw he ofhcer who arrested thompson he told that
he had arrested Thompson and farnham; asked him If
lac bad sure thing 10 convict him he said he had
told him that bad carried warrant time for
the arrest Of Farnham, but that could could
come him day / saw Thompson in Myrtle
avenue and he pointed out man. and said there Is
farnhsm but 10 not arrest him till after the Drury trial.
neither the District Attorney his assistant
spoke 10 me about Farnham; do not think he knew
anything about II; do think that anybody knew
anything about Il except the Judge who issued the
rant, Thompson, who made the complaint. and myself
Cross-examncd-It was some time in July that Thomp-
son pointed out Far nham to me- Thompson did not tell
me that the District Attorney desired that tarnham
should not be arrested; Thompson and Farnlam
walking together in Myrtle avenue when saw farnham
al the tidfe have alluded to.
David Van Voorhees, sworn--I reside in Brooklyn; /
have been sheriff Of this county know A. VI O. smith
general good character VI A. VI q. smith The Court,
however. ruled il out, and the witness Withdrawn u
NJ. 9. Smith recalled by the prosccution-When I
was in the building known the office Drury's pre-
misses. do not recolect seeing any segars;
light segar have recollection If telling any per-
that ought have locked them up ia a room;
laid hands person while was in that place push
ed no one did Lot push them out II the way did not
touch them don't know whether any one asked for
dressed Mr. Wilkes sometimes George" and
times as Wilkes" called him Joe" in my life;
be called me smith, there is particular way OF
identifying prisoners the police Office general prac
tice 20 far az know is to bring prisoners out, but
have known persons to be sent into the prison TO den
III, them.
Gross cxamincd-I do net remember Wilkes calling
me anything but Smith" hc may have called me "A
VI. c." he has sometimes called so; | told Mrs.
Drury that my smith, left all the dies found
Drurys premises at the police office: there five
Of them thought one pair we're for making half doub-
nK4lt oh fgak from Ia. hoxx
in separate compartment Of the box; I do not know
whether there wa piece q Newspaper wrapped around
been 10 Bristol FIR the 81 bills.
Rudolph Lexow recalled present nj the first
trial q Drny; heard jenkins examined hc said when
he arrested Drury, he took hold him by the hand,
printed paper shown the ~itncss) think wrote that;
paper read
v Do you call that a correct report
A. have already told you that was somewhat biased
against Mr. Drury far the proceedings VI the
are concerned IL i correct the introduction may be
little colorcd
A. NJ G smith rccaIcd.-I learned from Mr. wiSes.
that Margaret o Counor would be material witness
against DruIy won't u Boston, where first learned
that sc ~ bcyn conyiecd her deposition taken in
prison,
The record Of Margaret 0Conners conviction was
here put In evidence II proved that she convicted
% the nr. Monday q August lsl9 Of paing counter
felt 80 bills on the Eagle Bank Of Bristol, n l.
Inc testimony was here closed and 1t was agreed by
counsel a. the request Il the jury 70 submit the u
them under charge from the presiding judge without
summing up ~ counsel on either side
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Court having taken for dinner uet agsin
nj three O'Clock when Judge Greenwood proceeded 10
charge the jury. lie said
Gentlemen ~ tho jury regret that the anccs
under which called upon 10 charge you such
will enable the Court 70 address you Il would under
other circvmsrances have not had time 70 prepare
any notes from the volumnous testimony which has been
"a ken IN ths Genemcu, feel that In the frat
place The thanks 81 the Court due you for the pa
manner in which you have sbstainsd from my inica.
ton - bias during this trial must confess that seldom
In my experience have I seen much evidence 81 a
seue q duty evinc"l ny jury Let first call your
attention 20 the relative duties u Court aud jury Il
not e province 81 the Court direct your Judgment
70 conclusions upon facts You are BY law made
% call your attention 70 the law applicable %
fact u T. the right q the defendant 20 have the YER
Diet of the Jury unbiased upon facts have aud
never shGl interfere with the province u the Jury
C nceye TIL. TO lie tie right q the defendant The best
oeIse tor n " pnIsue 70 Dlng your NUNS dfee,y
from the maze into which you have been lei by the
ctmpscxy Of the case, 20 the offence with which the
prisoner !. charged There u scarcely question which
presents Itself 70 tho human mind that may not be solved
by some controlling points The prisoner indicted
for forgery In the second degree In having in his posses
zion count crfeit SO bill With intent to utter IL The
Jue- read 10 the jury the covering the offence
forgery In the second degrce) The note i described
in various ways In the Indictment The substance d
the charge Il hi having IN biz possession bill purport-
Ing to De $40 bill the Eagle Bank q Bristol X |
party l. not to be triad suspicious conectures
u T. necessary for the prosecution 10 make out afr
native case " " due also 70 the prosecution that the
evidence must depend upon the u
governed w the character u the casc You
allow the mind 10 10 conclusions not warranted by
the acs 81 the casc The first question that presents
itself IN this case " Had the prisoner in h possession
forged ~ counterfeit bank n3tc, don't knsw that It
y the theory q the defence 10 deny that the defendant
bad IN be possession such mote II e. Therefore 10 be
taken for granted that h. had If Mr. Drury had this
note in hi possession not knowing to be forged there
: an - ~ thus case Now, did Mr. Drury know that
hese bills were counterfeit I assume that il l. suf
tcenily proven w the testimony II jenkins Crassous
md Floyd that these bills the those found
n possession ~ Mr. Drury. The Judge here reviewed
he tefnony ~ jenkins aud Crsss0us touching the ar
Ysf q Mr. Drury and ALLUDED 10 discrepancy between
Jenkins. testimony HE tris and the testimony which
" gave on the first Drnry trial relating 70 the i
In which he laid hold n Mr. Drury when he
tstsd him II IL urged sad the Judge from the fact q
FIR Ifurys dropping the bills, that be knew they
ountsrf and u DID not matter whether he knew they
money ~ tho Eagle Bank n Bristol NOT. The
bcnfy n the defence w. that the pennies being inside
he bills hurt bic hand and csused him TO drop them.
VOW. msy BE- situated that though perfectly
be msy conduct himself u avoid the APP |
~ guilt. II make ubfavorable impression
galnst MIN. Another ground taken by the defence |
:. that Mr. Drry could not know what thea bills |
hat h