Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1857-08-13
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.

court, and Mr.. Ellis resumed his argument by
saying that he had endeavored to show the jury
that from the blunders which had been made by
the witnesses for the prosecution, and from their
many contradictions, they were not to be believed
in relation to the material facts to which they had
testified. He went on 10 enumerate long list OF
witnesses who had been examined Tor the oeIence,
all of them as he said respectable men and en-
tirely unconnected with the Administration now
in power and whose evidence was uncontra-
dicted by the testimony Of any creditable man,
. He asked the Jury II they had not understood
from the erroneous and he might say false, state
ments of the various newspaper presses OF w ash
ington that the riot of the morning had been kept
up at intervals until after the visit Of the marines
TO that spot
In order to do away with that erroneous impress
sion he referred them to the poll list which had
been brought into court, showing that during the
two and quarter hours previous to the first clos
ing of the polls the votes which had been re-
ceived were equal TO one per minute. There were
three hours II least between the hrst and tue laSt
Interruption and during that time 2i3 votes had
been polled. Now, here stands out In bold rellei
the fact, that when men were being pulled away
from the polls and beaten, and when disorder ana
prescription prevailed, there was one vote cast
for every forty four seconds OF time which passed
during those three hours. He commended that, In
view of ell these facts, the idea OF interruption
was simply ridiculous.
lie went ON 10 show that, during the election of
last year. at this same precinct exactly in the
same proportion during the same amount of time
rs this year; he commended that the interruption
which was said to have occurred was entirely
grOundless and entitled TO no credit.
Passing to the statements of Mr.. Key, with re-
gard to the Plug giles, he would not attempt to
excuse those men; he would not think Of defend
ing their acts on partisan grounds; he believed
that the defendants in this were innocent and
Prosecuted men; he would defend them without
lee or reward, because he believed that they Were
not the aggressors in the late election scenes.
Mr.. Ellis went on TO read part of the instruc-
tiOns which had been given by the Court, and
hey ID whether
charged had met together with d concerted pur-
pose not, they were to be either convicted or
acquitted on the charge OF riot! He begged the
= jury to keep that fact in mind, and he would go
on to show that there was no riot. The District
Attorney had endeavored to bring the two Stew
arts into close contact with those events; he had
endeavored TO prove their connection with the
cannon; with the morning affTay; with chasing,
gun in hand, gang of ITishInen down Ma>Sa-
chusetts avenue-all in the same moment, almost.
Was such thing possibleo If they had done
those things at one and the same time, the jury
could not convict them Of riot. 1t was an Of
fence, but not n riot. Two men could not make
riot, no matter how large they Were. Mr.. FTere
had said that Isaiah Stewart, instead of being
gagged with the rioters was cOunseling the other
side to 90 away out OF the reach of danger and
acting in manner in every way calculated to
show that he was endeavoring to restore peace
and prevent TiotinI.
Mr.. Ellis concluded his argument latter speak
ing some i've hours, in which he went over the
same ground, in effect as had been travelled over
by Mr.. Scott, on Tuesday.
The Court then adjourned.
FIFTEENTH DAY.
The Court met soon after 10 O'Clock this morn
ing, and the arguments for the defence in the
pending trial were resumed by
Mr. Bradley, who said that he could net pro-
coed TO argue the case any further, without ex-
pressing grateful sense Of the kindness Of the
Court in granting so much time and discussion to
the counsel for the defence He was suffering
from indisPosition, but he would endeavor to con-
fine himself TO strict legal investigation of the
facts in evidence in this case.
The case presented itself to the jury as a simple
question OF law and evidence: Whether the par
ties now on trial were guilty Of a riot-whether,
in point Of law, the evidence justifes the Jury in
finding them guilty? The law Of riot was well
defined, and although IL had received particular
qualifications, still its general principles were
well understood He understood, very we'll the
theory Of the District Attorney in this case he had
endeavored TO apply the law TO his theory; he
conceived that If the jury found that the parties
indicted had intended to carry into effect the Of
fence with which they were charged, they were
guilty OF a riot. IL they find that any one of the
parties Indicted, to crafty some other purpose
Kill man, 1t is no part Of the riot for there must
be purpose TO effect an object, concert together
for that purpose, and final accomplishment Of
that purpose, to constitute a riot
TO take another step in this matter, the riot
must be precOnceTted-that element is as neces-
sary as is malice in a case of wilful murder Tie
argument Of the District Attorney had been di-
rected 10 the jury to confound separate and dis
the
most guilty Of the participants in the Of the
not which had been alleged by the United States
should 90 free than that one innocent person
should be punished in the slightest degree for
crime not committed by him.
Mr.. Is. went on to define what he conceived to
be the difference between a riot and an affray
lie said il was lawful for the Baltimore Plug
CglieS 10 be in the streets OF Washington on thai
day. II was lawful for them to be in Seventh
street on that afternoon il was for the marines
tn be there. IL now became necessary 10 see for
what purpose they Were there. Ifthey were there
some of them, to disturb and break up the cleo
tOn, and others to crafty some personal malice
against individuals, thSy might he committing
misdemeanor, but they were not guilty of an
afffay.
Mf B. went on to read from some of the Eng
lsh authorities to illustrate this point still fur
ther, and to show under what circumstances and
how Tar the jury must credit the evidence OF wit
nesses in a critical a. this was He said
that IL was instinct OF humanity for US 10 shield
our own acts by duplicating others This il was
which caused men to see through false mediums.
ltwas great mistake to suppose that men who
do not swear TO the truth are swearing falsely In
the course OF some thirty years practice at this
Court, he had not found II necessary, except in
four or i've instances. to impute deliberate per.
jury.
He cautioned the jury that where they saw par.
~ prejudice or interest in the evidence OF man
who testifes TO distTust him. He might intend
to be truthful. but his mind was certainty warned
and not capable OF fair statement OF events
wherein his interest was concerned. Charles
hCiO WHO was SnO. by the
marines in two places, and now carries thelead
from their muskets in his head, is charged here
with riot; and the only evidence To implicate
him is given by Officer BiTkhead. This officer
was policeman and was himself skulkin0 be-
hind the barricade, with a dense crowd standing
between him and Alston's corner, and he affaid
to look out from his hiding place. Yet he dis
tinetly at this time saw, he testifes here Chas
Spencer on that corner making demonstrations
towards the maTihes
Ii was well known fact, said Mr. d that
moth 1t0s ffpcfs tls.Ny fsi.,,
was afraid that officer must lave been actuated
by this feeling TO greater less extent at that
time. Al SO then, how far could the jury trust to
his statements against the MULTIPLICITY of evi.
dence which had been given by the defence 10 the
contrary, which was positive and which was neg.
alive evidence in this case he had no doult tRe
jury could understand perfectly well without anv
further argument IL was most e la ka bile fact
that Capt Baggott, Chief of Police was present
every day during the examination of the testjmonv
Tor the United states, and was not put upon the
stand To testify in this case. IL was found thai
he had fred IL not the fist the two shots which
followed the first discharged on that occa.ior