Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1854-11-27
LOCAL NEWS.
Trial of .he Alleged Bu.man RiO,er

Messrs. Stoddard, Hoar, Chapln, and Thay-
out argument.
:. S. Foster proposed to offer few words,
in explanation OF his position in this case, and
of his relations to the government. He de-
Court, because he had, years ago, severed HIM
self entirely from the government under the
authority of which it was established. Mr..
Foster drew distinction between living UNI
der a government, aud having connection
with it, He said he was willing, as matter
of expediency, to bind himself to appear be-
fore another tribunal, and to submit to such
penalties as it might see fit to impose upon
him but, while he was willing TO do so, he
would still maintain, so far he could, his
perfect independence of such tribunal. He
had declined to adduce defensive testimony in
this CASE and would not do SO at any stage of
it. He relied upon his past life and charac-
ter, as his defence against charges of riot and
violence. He believed the present prosecu-
ton to be wicked and malicious one, got up
for the purpose of harrassing and troubling
the defendant. He believed that the case
had been prejudged, and, under this belief
he had cross examined the evidence of the
pros ecution, simply that he might present
to the public mind the bias and falsity of
the testimony, whether designed to be so or
otherwise, he would not say. He was a nom
resistant, and had been so for years but, he
declared that if he ever could be converted to
the doctrines of violence, he would, upon the
issue of slavery, go for bloody revolution.
Joseph A. Rowland, said that, so far as he
could understand, this case had been pre-
judged; and for this reason he did OF put in
any defence.
Mr.. Matthews submitted the case for the
government witnout argument.
Judge Green summed up. He held that all
the violence which took place on the S0th,
was the result of the proceedings at the
American House on the goth. He compared
| the action of Messrs. Foster, Rowland, and
Thayer, to that of incendiaries who had sci
when they saw that it was likely to be con-
sumed, attempted to extinguish the flames
He held that they intended to excite others to
violence on the 10Th; and although they help
ed to rescue Butman, it was to late.
In relation to Mr.. Moody, it was proven
that he was at the American House about his
legitimate business. on Sunday night-that
he accidentally met the crowd on Frent street
on Monday-and that lie did all he could to
protect Butman, after he got into the crowd.
In answer to the statements of Messrs. Foster
and Rowland, that they considered their cases
prejudged from the beginning, the Court had
nothing to say. These statements were, Ger
tainly. not very complimentary to the Count
The Court could only say, that it had endeav-
ored to try the case fully and fairly, without
prejudice or bias. The Court then went into
defence of its ruling, upon the exclusion Of
the wives of Messrs. Foster and Rowland as
counsel, and stated that it did so because there
| was no precedent for women being admitted
| to practice in the courts of Massachusetts.
The Court then ordered that S. S. Foster
Joseph A. Rowland, Adm Thayer, Alexander
Hemmenway, Solomon H. Dutton, and John
Angler, jr., severally to recognize in the sum
of $500 each, for their appearance before the
Court of Common Pleas, at the next January
| term.
The Court held that Mr.. Moody had been
clearly, conclusiycly, and fully exonerated
from any participation in the alleged riot, and
he was therefore, discharged.
! S. S. Foster rose to take exception to some
charges that had been made against him i'll the
course of the trial. The Court intimated that
the case was closed. Mr.. Foster then said
that he would have a meeting on Sunday
evening, where his lips would not be pad
locked, and lie challenged the Court to meet
him there and discuss the merits of this case
The Court intimated that it never attended
Mr. Fosters meetings, and worshipped in an
entirely different place. Mr.. Rowland rose
and said the Judge claimed the right to say
what he pleased in court, without allow wing
them the privilege of reply. He dared not
meet them on a free platform.
The defendants obtained bonds and the
Court adjourned.