The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1854-03-16
Tho Martha Washington Trial! 4

! The Helena correspondent of the Memns
Eagle and Enquirer. has two letters in that
paper of last Sunday, under date cf the 9th
The court opened that morning, all the priso-
ners being present. The counsel for the de-
fendents presented the following exceptions
TO the return of the sheriff OF Philips county,
as the basis on which they founded their ap-
plication for writ of habsas corpus:
LIST. Because The said Thompson (the sher-
/ IT'D justifies the caption and detention OF said
deendenis, rendered By virtue OF the warrant
issued by Neil, Justice of the Peace, on the
3lst of January, aud the said return does not
show directly or indirectly that the warrant
: was in his hands on the day when the hd6eas
corpus on this behalf was served OIL him.
End. Because the said Thompson justifies
the caption and detention of said defendants
} under and by virtue of another warrant issued
by the said Neil, on the End Of March, when it
is not shown by any return or endorsement
thereon that said warrant or process was in
his hands or possession, when the habeas cor
puS was served upon him, nor does it show
when the said writ came to his hands and
what proceedings had been had hereunder by
him.
Sd. Because the said Thompson justified
the caption and detention OF said prisoners
under warrant issued by the said Neil, on
the 9th day of March, 1854, when the return
on the writ OF habcas corpus shows that it was
served on Thompson on the Sd day OF March,
1854, time anterior 10 the date of said writ
and by the term of said writ Of habeas corpus,
the said Thompson could only show there
upon what authority he had to detain said
prisoners at the time said writ was served on
him.
4th. Because the crimes and offences
charged against the said prisoners in the war
rants of Neil, issued on the end, and 9th Of
March, 1854, if any such was committed, was
and are merged in the crimes and offences
charged against them in the warrant issued
by the Governor OF Ohio, and the warrant
issued by Neil, on the 3lst of January, 1854,
ii any such offence was really committed by
the said prisoners, for the crime alleged in
such Of said warrants, if any such were COM
mitted, are the sel-same acts with wlich
they are charged in the warrant of the Gov
ernor of Ohio, and the one Issued by Neil on
the 3lst of January, 1854.
9Th. Because ID each and all the warrants
exhibited by the sheriff in his return, under
which he justifes the caption and detention
of said prisoners,a declare two separate and
distinct criminal charges made against each
of said defendants, thereby rendering them
the said warrants obncxi, us TO duplicity, and
consequently irregular and void.
9Th. Because the affidavits and warrants
exhibited by Thompson in his amended and
original return endorsed OH said writ OF ha-
beas corpus, in no way or manner charge that
4 tt.a
Arkansas, at the time of the commission of
the several offences charged against them,
which averment or allegation is necessary 10
give jurisdic, ion TO the courts of this State In
any claim, therefore:-W hereupon the said
tprisoners aver, that the orr ginal and amended
return of the said Thompson show no cause
or reasc why they should longer be held in
custody and Imprisonment under said warrant
and they ask to be discharged therefrom.
(Signed by Counsel)
Judge Hanley also, presented the affidavit
of Alonzo Fl. Oliver, in which affiant states
;hat he was in the employ of Fily and Chap
in at certain time, and II at the said Chaplin
and others of the tefendents, were in the city
OF Cincinnati at the time Of the burning OF the
Martha Washington, for sumo time before
and thus after that event. Also the affidavit
of Mrs. Kissane, that her son William, one
of the defendants, was in the city Of Cincin.
natl at that time. Notice was also given that
the affidavit of Mr-. Chaplin, would be given
as soon as 1t would be prepared, the affidavit
being confined to the whereabouts of the
Chapins Cher sons) at the time of the burning
of the steamer.
Judge E. w. NJ. King, of Memphis, open.
ed the case in behalf of the defendants, and
proceeded at some length to show that the
proceedings had been illegal, that there was
no proof positive that these defendants had
committed any crime or offence against the
laws of Arkansas; and, furthermore, that
they were not, at the time of the burning OF
the steamer, within the jurisdiction of this
State. His speech was argumentstive aud
replete with legal authority, occupying over
three hours in delivery.
The arguments of prosecutor and defend.
ants counsel occupied the afternoon.
The court convened next morning, and the
arguments were continued during the day.
His Honor, Judge Adams, informed the coun-
sci, that the argument must be concluded the
next day. 1t was anticipated the decision
would be given on Monday, the 18th. III
seemed to be the prevailing opinion that the
prisoners would be retained in custody, at
least Till after an examining court shall decide
| q hea, ~ ti, ~,
was probably held on Monday.
Meeting in Pike County.