True American. [volume] (Steubenville [Ohio]) 1855-1861, 1857-07-08

/ u 0SOs - tt"Sss Nt'N -T''NN~N'S ~@NS
Masters
CoURT OF 0yER AND TERMINEa-Re.
fore Hons. w. B. Mcclure, ]. E. Parke
and G. Adams.
Tuesday Afternoon, June so, 1857.
| At an early hour the Court room wa.
crowded with all manner of persons, anx-
ious to catch glimpse Of the prisoners.
At halfpast two o'clock, his Honor,
Judge Mcclure asked the counsel if they
were redy to try the case when Mr.
Fleniken arose and stated that he was no,
prepared, in consequence Of the absence
Of material and important witnesses
whom he had expected to be present.
His honor remarked that inasmuch as
the Court had issued processes at the ex-
pense of the county, for the purpose Of
having the witnesses for the defence
brought into Court, there certainly could
not be any blame attached to them; and
as there had been no legal exceptions
taken TO proceeding at once to trial, the
Court had nothing to pass upon i and as
the orders of Cour, in respect to bringing
Witnesses to the stand were now in pro.
cess of execution, it was evident they
would all be here before they were called
upon.
At twenty minutes to 8 o'clock the
Court ordered the prisoners to be brought
in, and placed on trial. The Common.
wealth was represented by F. H. Collier,
ESQ.,, District Attorney, S. G. Winigard,
ESQ.,, and R. Riddle Roberts Charlotte
Jones and Henry Fife were represented
by Thomas Howard, Esq, and Messrs.
r. P. Fleniken and Thomas NJ. Mar
shall, Esq, appeared on behalf Of Mon
roe Stewart.
The Clerk was about to proceed with
the reading of the bill of indictment to
the prisoners, when Mr. Fleniken arose,
and stated that he had been waiting for
some time for the arrival of his collegue,
Mr.. Marshall, and that he would now
make motion that Monroe Stewart. who
is jointly indicted with the other parties,
be tried separate ; urging as reasons for
such motion, that the defence which he
Intended to set up for his client, would
be Of different nature from that made by
tho others and further in the challeng-
ing Of jurors, where a prisoner has the
right TO challenge pre-emptory, twenty
jurors and as many more as he can show
cause for, there must arise great embar
rassments in the present case, should all
the prisoners be tried jointly. The learn.
ed counsel continued with leng g.hy and
able argument in support Of his motion,
during which time the prisoner, on be-
half Of whom he was speaking listened
with attentive interest 10 every word tha
was spoken while the other two seem
ell unconcerned, and scanned with an eve
of indifference, the spectators that filled
| the Court Room.
r. Biddle Roberts, on behalf Of the
prosecution, replied 10 The arguments oi
the counsel for the defence, by stating
that he deemed it indispensably necessa'
ry to have joint trial OH this occasion
as the offence had been committed Joint
ly, and the prisoners had been so indicted
The whole current Of Pennsylvania deci.
sions, went to confirm the rule. The
only 2recedenls in the Books, on which
the defence rests their authority for ask.
ing separate trial for the defendants, is
that Of Judge Washington. 1t is there
fore entirely at the discretion Of the Court
to say whether or not the prisoners shall
have separate trial.
The Journal Of the 4th inst, gives a
very full account Of the proceedings up
to Friday last. Much difficulty was ex.
perianced in the empannelling of jury.
On the End day this was accomplished,
Up 10 Friday the Court was employed in
the examination of witnesses. The court
proceeding upon joint trial Of the par.
ties, and it is yet problim of doubtful
solution, how the case will result. That
the parties accused are guilty, we have
but little doubt, but wheather the testimo.
ny will be sufficiently clear to induce the
jury 10 such conclusion is somewhat
doubtful. We hope to have further in
telligence upon the subject, to communi
cate before going 10 press.
| WASHINGTON CRY, July 3.--To obvi
ale embarrassmenls and Inconvenience.
under the Indenendent Treasure Taw ond