The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-10-14
Trial mr. Enlisting for the Crimea-The
~ Judgc'S Charge-vordict, GulIty.
..- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. I
Bafore Hon. Judge IngersOu. - - /

-. JudgeS Charse-veraict, Gaiity.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. (
BAfoze Hon. Judge Ingersou s. -
Der 1s.-1ne .Cniad .Ssdas Us. Joseph Wd0ner.-This
resumed this morning BY the defence producing
Mrs Frey wife Of ts boarding house keeper who corro
boaed the testimony OF her husband ~ to Wagner being
in bed up 10 or O'Clock the Sd OF August the day
ON which Cock swore he met MIN inthe Bowery. mo-
ton was made dismiss the charge the discrepancy
in the indictment the name of the party alleged to
have been enlisted. This was denied
Mr.. Ogden Hoffman having summed up fog the Defence
and the district Attorney for the prosecution,
The proceeded to charge the jury by saying that
Il cir duty was a very simple onc--to inquire whether
Wagner, the person charged, was guilty Of hiring the
person named Cook beyond the limits Of the United
States with the intent that he, (Cook) when he went
eyond the limits Of the United States to be en-
aged soldier for foreign government The Court
eeve that all the counts In the Indictment charged
hat the PERSON hired OF the of Abraham Cook
with the exception Of the last count-where the Grand
II i not necessary to refer to any enactments of Con-
rress except the which this indictment Is found
The act of 1918, ssys; -
Of the United States enlist or enter himself or hire retain
sa' e, &c
enlisted entered In foreign service Of foreign prince
q ssy Or q % s e.
3 81 0sSsGs "a % ss
imprisoned not exceeding three years. Fat4 ~
ss has been ssT to the proof
thing is proved i Is not proved that this De-
person not Abraham Cook; and II any hired
It was different person from Abraham Cook and that
verdict should be given for the defendant. neves
hna n apnd
the purposes Of this trial that If the person
Cook-notwithsandn the difference Of pronunciation
spelling Of the in another country-tha that is
sufficient and that it would make no diferencs and that
you, gentlemen, being judges Of the. fact The
that person shall hire or retain another person
list enter himself to beyond the limits Of the United
vice Of foreign government soldier. II one person
merely informs another that II he went to Halifax
rea s h no on"s against
the law OF Congress- In such case there has been no
hiring or retaining In promise Of hire on either side
there has only be- information given and the law OF
given it only Furnishes when there been hiring
go Halifax with the intent TO enlist that is lawful
that Is not opposed to theaw Of Congress upon which
one by any cons paid or promised 10 Be paid
to engage another to to Halifax with the INTENT
gisF TO the s h q s,ys
at Huax in tho service of the British government
soldier, in the service of any other foreign govern
ment O soldier. II Cook agreed with Wagner that he
could g. beyond the limits OF the United States to Hall
fax ard enlist soldier under the British govern
men and if the consideration OF inducement Of such
agreement the part Of Cook was promise on the
part of Wagner that he Cook when he should 90
enlist, should receive $50 advance, and should
slso receive $40 month for his services SOL
der, ii a part the whole of the consideration
of the passage Of Cook from New York 10 Boston or
promise to pay such passage-or the consideration OF
such ag eenent, reason, motive which led to it,
was any other promise OF money by Wagner, or any
other valuable thing and II Cook when he entered into
such agreement any such consideration had the
as soldier in the service of the British government
then the offence enacted by the act OF Congress upon
which the indictment is founded IL complete and Wagner
must be deemed guy--so that you see that the mere
giving Information Is not sufficient the mere starting
such as have stated to you then the offer is completes
then there is violation Of the act OF Congress- If the
testimony Of Cook cannot be depended upon then the
testimony of Ccok have said Cook cannot be entire
ly relied on, tie prosecution mus. fail. 10 reply to his
Bowery, on the Sd Of August and particularly between
eleven and twelve O'Clock when Coook swears this
| rangenent made between them, AMI they say that
Wagner confined to his bed during the waole Of the
morning. and that he did not get from his bed until be-
by The boat between four -" and five o'clock. Il
| the fact is, that Wagner was in his bed at
that time, then he was not in the Bowery; and If
the fact that he in the Bowery then he not in
bed. It was for the jury to determine to whom they
would give the crcait-whether to Cook, on the part
fence; they cannot all speak the truth 1t is sound
maxim of law when there one more witnesses tes
u1ying 10 iAct-t the jury 10 1908 10 VIII
nerses and say whether either other Of them is
telling the truth The jury are to see which the Wit
who have object to gain The defence claims
that the three witnesses they introduced have object
to gsn and they claim that Cook has an object In the
conviction If Wagner and that is penalty
of the law himself The day appears to be xedon all
sides they say the third Of August-hen the three
witnesses for the defence could not have d the TRUTH
Wagner in the Bowery, and Cook could not have
told the truth he Wagncr) in bed at that time. 1t
is the duty Of the government to establish the be
yond all reasonable doubt TO the jury and you should
not be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt you will
give verdict for the defendant. If you satisfied,
you are bound to find him guilty.
The district Attorney asked the Court to charge that
the jury entirely possession Of the facts anG
| the judges of the cIedibity OF the witnesses.
The Court charged The jury in about three quar-
| tiers of an hour brought in a verdict of guilty.
i Mr.. Hoffman notified the Court Of his intention to
| make case for argument.