The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-05-21
The Gardner Trial.
CLOSE OF THE SUMMING UP-THE CASE SUBMITTED
To THE JURY.

WASHINGTON, May 20. 1858.
In the Gardner trial. this morning. the District Attor-
nsy in continuation called attention to discrepancies be-
tween the evidence before the Board Of and
the testimony of Abbot and Socum The latter none
of the tmbers remains OF the extensive buildings and
mining machinery described in the deposition before the
former The mines they visited could not have been those
for which the claim was allowed. There was not par
hce OF evidence that those mines Gardner mines
except the statement Of defendant himself Abbot and
Socum undoubtedly saw the mines they described;
S out those were the mines Of Ialpan In the state
further animadverted upon the conduct of accused,
which he thought wholly inconsistent with that Of
innocent man and in conclusion thanked the jury for
their indulgence to the extended remarks he had felt it
his duty to make He had before been engaged in
case Of such responsibility. There had been
in this country perhaps not in any country which
devolved SO high responsibility upon all concerned.
The character perpetuity of our political institutions
involved in it. The question whether virtue, which
was the foundation of republican institutions could be
maintained was at ISSUE It more difficult to bring
offenders to justice in this country than in the monar
ches of Europe and the eyes of this great nation ando
the world were upon the jury looking with anxious soil
cude at the result He submitted the to the jury
confident that they would decide not from motives Of
sympathy with the accused but out Of strict regard 70
the ends Of public justice acquittng him If reasonable
doubt existed in Their IN nds and convictng If otherwise
At the conclusion Of the District Attorneys remarks
Mr. Bradley in behalf of the defence again proposed to
submit the case to the jury without argument.
Mr. May inquired whether the counsel for defence de-
cliped 70 address the jury.
Mr. Bradley wished ii understood that they now sub
mted the case to the jury but that they did not waive
an, right to argue; and were prepared to argue,
MIR May stated the rules Of practice in Maryland,
where was laid down that the closing address was one
Of reply, and If the defence made no argument Of
course there could be no reply He desired to q
know If such to be the practice of this court; If
not, he should feel his duty to address the jury.
Ihe only consideration which produced the least en-
barrassment hesitation in his mind was sense Of
public duty But he should acquesce in the decision of
the Court.
Mr. Bradley called the attention of the Court to the de-
cson Of the Circuit Court Of this District that in
where counsel for the defendant do not address the
jury, plaintiffs counsel having made the opening argu-
ment the latter not entitled further to argue to the
juTy-ther further right being merely that of reply.
Judge Crawford, in conformity with this decision and
at the same time following the practice in Mary
land decided that the further right Of the United States
TO argue was of reply and consequently If counsel
United States could not further address them.
The Court then took recess. On reassembing the
case will be submitted to the jury.
Immediately on re-assembliDg after the recess, the
Court directed the jury retire it being contrary to the
Of this court for the Judge TO charge the jury
but the Court said according to the practice OF this
Court they could not take any papers except the ndic
ment, but mis- hit examine any other papers in the ev
dence before leaving the court room.
The jury accordingly spent half an hour In carefully
examining the signatures the mining titles, &C, ap
plying tracing paper, and at two O'Clock they retired
The District Attorney offered to 60 with the Of
John Charles Gardner next Monday week. to which time
the other jurors had been dismissed in anticipation OF
protrscted arguments in the present case.
Mr.. Bradley, in Gardner's behalf expressed desire
that his should then be proceeded with; but there
being several important Jail d0cketed which the
Court said would take precedence insisted upon 1t
left for the lawyers to determine which should rst
| be tried
9P M-The jury still out with no prospect of i'm
mediate agreement.