The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-12-05
THE STANWN HALL TRAGEDY.
-, ~ Ixouis Baker for the Homicide O.
vpu,am Pooie-Evidence for the Defence

Uu,.m Pooie-Evadence for the Defence.
SEVENTH
COURT OF oYER AND TERxlNEH.
Hon. Judge Roosevelt presiding.
THE PEOPLE BAKER
pscrSnR AT the organization Of the Court this
warming the Judge said that he perceived IN the report
Mr. Ruae Is made that in the indicn against
Poole and Williams for assault and battery with in
TENT to kill Poole convicted and Williams died.
O course ii should be Poole died and Williams was con-
victed.
Counsel said, certainly 1t was transportation
Of names.
Mr. Clark for the Defence said--F the Court please,
no propose go with the without any formli
statement OF the facts, and shall therefore
comments on the evidence until later hour Of the tf;L
II IL our design to now elicit from the witnesses such fur
Their facts may tend to throw lghs upon the trans
the hps those who indicted accessories to the
felony.
ms the principal in the MURDER and included Van pe
Irving, Morrissey, Lynn aad Hyler ~ accessories.
Mr.. Clark-I do not propose to now say word of
Bakers II must be submitted to the jury on the
evidence already introduced aud which will intro
duce But it is my purpose to cal the attention OF
must have suggested itself to their minds.
Your Honor is aware that, according to the law
can be witnesses for the accused but in of tae
western States, without ree fence to the common law,
The indicted arc admitted as Witnesses IN order
the prosecution shall not exclade from the jury In
any the truth of the transaction But under the
law Ct New York. it would appear that 1t Is the rule how
little aud not how much, light shall be melted out to thu
jury. am here in the OF an ARRAY where of
the parties accused OF murder and the others the
IT. nd with But this can always be done in
where parties included in the ndct
ment defendant although the took part in the al
fray is however, in the power of The prosecuting
officer the effects of the Indictment and let
them examined for the defence And even Ii prose
culipr officer should avail himself of it, it was the intent
Of TIE legislature give the Court the power the su
perv,soEy power to regulate it thai the prosecuting
cannot ex clude Ali the truth which trey have Il
fIair 10 / y1 not shtnpn h,,at
Baker, prinia face has been made part of
the transaction, which the jury must pass upon It is
well knoe fact, and known to the Prosecution that
Coropes jury erupanneed to try the question of
Pooles murder; they brought together at OF
great excitement, and perhaps ain not of the way
in yrg that Of Them afterwards pail bea
At pooles fune Al They fonnd Singular verdict aud In
ezra, rdnsry language. While they found Baker silty
Of having POOLE they found Morrissey and the
Others accessories This done before the excite
had lued, and before the had time
to their homes ard lind out how little they knew about the
matter These defendants were found guilty long befre
they tried any fair investigation of the facts
which must throw great difficulties the trial Of the
case About Inst time was employed in the case, and
brought it before Judge Cowes, and from the tesin
tkep at he Carones inquest before the Grand Jury
clear that of my clients took part in the
afay i had also before the lately deceased aad
lamented Judge Morris did hesitate say that
the conduct OF the Grand Jury most fragrant, aud
notwithstanding the opposition Of the District Attorney
he admitted Irving bail ! prop ,se that Morris
the indictment, there being not particle OF evidence
against them.
the Court TO direct mile proseqd in order that they
may be used as witnesses. That is question vet to
deciced You do not suppose, mean that t9ey could
be used as witnesses without getting rid Of the iadc
ment.
because a Grand Jury has indicted hmp 1t Is i'm
portant that these should be examined because
they have knowledge of the facts which, ii given in evil
dence weud ae right in relation to the
tiop. The indictment was found in storm, and that
storm has passed away, and take clear and
dispassionate view OF The subject
The cou't-rhe question for me to decide la can sit
here to repeal existing laws no matter how my OPT
Mr. Clark read part Judge Cowles' opinion on the
and said how far was living concerned in the at
frsyY He present the time II Pooles death;
was there at nine O'clock and inerscred TO prevent
collision between him and Morrissey and he went home
and what there in his which the Granl
July could found title Of truth to indiet him? So ais
in relation to Van Pelt and Linn; they struggled IN
mere boys and did nothing except to interfere viii Pau
deem, WHO, it vas shown, was carrying crusade o.
his own account What did these boys do but endeavo
prevent ccision between Paudeen and Pooef TheJ
we're both hit Ind left the house. II there son
spracy against Poole Why no pa them on the stand
IL there INC tell It; but the prosecution want
70 prevent it. If their evidence would go aglns
Padeen Turner and Baker the case would be otherwise
Is probable that any jury would conyic. Hyer Var
Felt or Lynn That part of the testimony goes
pncate them intelligent man doubt. will sa "
The Court hat 1t was the intention Of the legislature
prevent party from being deprived Of the y
testimony for his defence But by that act Of the Grand
Jury including SO many Of our necessary ,itnesses u
the indictment, 1t would be prevented If there
remedy for It, Among the acts relative to criminal Of
fences there il whit n let's every have sep,
With Baker just innocent any that jury
who did not Ike 70 be put trial along with Baker
At when they thc ught fair trial impossible; aud
he has beer put CD his trial alone There other parts
this which give great powers 70 the prosecution
unless the district Attorney gives consent T. have any
prosecution keeps.out all the truth, and induces the
Grand Jury 70 bling in so many pirties to tho indct.
u,ent il woull be Impossible for tine truth TO coma
ut. will not take the ressonsioiy of saying who
i1nocent guity-thst belongs to the jury but i
the or osecution says will hold them that they
mot illnesses. this Court remedy II, and take
on itself the responsibility Of directing innocent Il
be di charged accusation without little
testimony to sustain it. The indictment is pen ling be
fore this Court and has Jurisdiction the mateI
aud over the District Attorney. l. is manifest
that Bakers defence is that what he did to dereud
bimeh from the savage assault Of men who In ended
tAte his with firearms. sr Clark here quoted fro
the statute and said it is manifest that when there
not sufficient testimony put the pa ties their trial
it IL the duty Of the Court to discharge them win tn
prosecuting officer say his honor gentleman
man, that there is any evidence to put Morrissey
Lynn triaf
in r,py to a remak from the Court that counsel Il,
deence had moved a separate T. i'll for his client
Mr.. Clark ssid-No, did NOT; proposed to have
fused to have them all tried wi h Baker; and
could the torrent a public opinion which exists
against Baker. II Bakers wis that they should BIZ
s tiled together the others refu ssd it, need
press the question further 1t must be clear to the
Tee and unless shsy can in good faith say that thee
sufficient to put the parties on trial they 81 ud at once
the benefit OF their testimony.
The District Attorney said--we proposed bring
the parties to trial, and remcmber asking my learn
friend you wish not 10 have esrate trasS wha
took ace between him and other counsel do not KIN
But II our to try them all accepted the oontin
reuey alluded to by my learned friend nigh, have
CURED and might have been your hsnos duty to say
that the indictment defective in law that you
would order them to be discharged and then tn nigh
give evidence These facts which wi be laid before
fhe jury showing tina. the prosecuting officer has zig
20 hold these TO the Indictment but they
on trial this evidence at present be shut out
Mr. Brady ,aid he understood that the counsel FOR
Irving in Court and that he ented to his
being tried with Baker
Mr. John A. nevelin counsel for Irving said mir
ars applied 10 roe tohave Irving iocuded 10 the trial
and applied to Irving aud he peremptoriy refused
Mr. whiting sait--we proposed 10 try them altogether
and IL the gentleman who represents Baker had con
suited with counsel for the other DESCENDANTS and oh
tanned their consent, II would have been done
There sufficient notice given and If counsel for the
defence proposed To have Of the others trec first
they said,t would be necessary TO Hyer Wit
the court might have ordered any other Of the de-
PENDANTS TO be tried frst But understood the gentle
for the defnce wished have Bker tried first We
giyen te.timnny Rsker and