The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-09-30

left arm, the ball had gone through; another hole in
his back, an inch or so side of the spine the
ball was not taken out, the Doctor probed it to the
} depth of three four inches; it was Dr. Colburn;
saw Mary Smith there; she made remark to Ford
Mr.. Whitney.-What was that remark?
; Objected to, by the defence. Question admitted
by the Court.
Witness continued.-She said, "Oh nv God! do
take him away; he has killed my brother" or bro
ther-in law, don't recollect which; have the pis-
tOl; here it Isl it is selfcocking revolver six bar
relied four barrels have been discharged two are
now loaded it was about five minutes after heard
the reports of the pistol beforeI got into the house,
there was no light in the back room when Ford
first stopped down to find ring; there was no light
shining in that part of the room.
Question by Juror.-Was Ford in liquor?
Witness.-When first saw him did not notice that
he was, but afterwards thought that he had been
intoxicated and was then getting over it. took
him to the Western District station house; Ford
on the way there, said, ''te them that | gave nv
sell up; ne gave no reason for this; he mentioned
this more than once; had on the police uniform at
the time; supposed Ford knew me; examined the
iioor OF the house; there some drops of blood
from the back door to where the body lay there
was not soul in the house to nv knowledge
Cross-examination by Mr.. Cowan.-Ford pass
ed me before | went into the house; looked into
the house from the gate; Ford did not attempt to
run; made no resistance to go back; the shirt of
deceased was pulled out of his pantaloOps little:
did not observe any blood about the person of Ford
until went to the station house, where saw some
blood on his coat-sleeve. The body was lying with
the head near the mantepece, the feet towards the
folding DOORS deceased was a little stouter than
me and about an inch taller
By Mr.. Hack.-I was examined before the coro-
ners jury; Ford did not say to me that he had shot
man, and that it was done in selfdeence; took the
pistol from Ford on Fremont street, and gave it to
Capt. Lineweaver at the station house; Ford made
S1s about to go to the Station house; when going
to the station, Ford asked where was taking him;
| told him, to the Western Station; he asked me to
take him to The Middle Station, saving the officers
there knew him and would treat him better; Burn
ham was substitute police officer of the Southern
District had star on when at the house, the star
was found in his pocket; the house is not in the
Southern District, it is in the Western District;
was three or four minutes at the body, when it was
on fire. Ford was aside of me.
| Captain Llneweaver swOrn.-Was at the Western
| District station house when Ford was brought in
by officer Bishop; the two pistols were handed to
me by Bishop; placed the pistols in the drawer;
had three or four conversations with Ford in rela
ton to this occurrence; my object was to gain in
| formation relative to this case; when Ford was
brought in he was put in first cell; Ford stated in
our conversation that he shot this Burnham;
that he had pistol of his own, having lent his to
friend he said that going into this house Burn
ham had struck him, and that scuflle ensued,
when he wrenched Burnham's pistol from him
! and shot him with his (Burnham's) own pis-
| toll; he said he shot him with a revolver;
1t was between and 10 o'clock at night when Ford
was brought in. Ford said Burnham had struck
him with stick; appeared to be very nervous and
eXclted not a great deal of blood upon FOrds per-
son; on his face from his nose down wards;
think there were some spots on his shirt; Ford ask
| ed me to allow him to have something to drink;
did not deny it to him; got him something to drink
! and Ford paid for it; did not give him drink be-
of his excitement; it is not unusual to give
| prisoners liquor; understood Ford to say that the
| blow from Burnham upon the mouth, that he
wrenched the pistol from the hands of Burnham,
! that it was revolver, and that he shot him with
! that pistol.
William W. Webster, recalled by Mr.. Whitney.
| Saw pistol sticking out of FOrd's pocket that
] nInh thn hand lln hat DlN,.r
! yer shown to witness.)
Questioned by the Defence.-Heard Ford say in
the fore part of the scufle, You are killing me;'
never heard Ford threaten to kill Burnham; when
| Ford called to me, it in stranguated tone.
! Mr.. Whitney asked the witness if he testified to
that effect in his examination in chief, and whether
| he had been in conversation with Mr. Patterson,
one of the counsel for the Defence since he left the
| stand.
Mr.. Hack objected and asked if the State by this
was going to impeach its own witness.
The Court admitted it, and it was put to the wit
ness in this form Have you, since you went from
this stand, in the presence of German and Bishop,
conversed with Mr.. Patterson?
The witness said that Mr. Patterson had told
him that he wanted him (witness) to tell him ev-
erything about this case as an honorable man
should.
The Court then adjourned until this morning at
10 o'clock.
SUPERIOR CoURT.-IIon. Z. Collins Lee, Judge.
In this Court Yesterday the argument was conclu-
ded in the case of Henry NJ. Warfied Us. VIM. Fra
zier, the Inspector General of Grain-whch case
has occupied the past three days, and is one of
much Importance to the interests of both the agri
culturalists and the grain dealers.
The counsel in the MessrS. r. j. Brent, |
Wm Price and John Nelson for the complainants,
| and Judge Z. C. Chambers Milton Whitney and
John i. Thomas, jr., for the State, who were ap
% iIfsf1u the Inspector general prosecuting
a suit then pending before VIM. H. Hayward, a
Justice of the peace, brought by the inspector as
inormer, against the complainant, to recover
/ for violation of tha 15th section of the
act of 1858, chapter 256-being the grain actor
weighing grain their own account, contrary to
the provisions of the act The bill contends that,
according to the law, the inspector Is bound to
weigh every bushel of wheat and grain; that the
| inspector having refused to do this he violated
the law. The answer filed by Messrs. Whitney
and Thomas denies that the inspector is Obliged to
weigh eUery bushel; but inasmuch as the act does
not specify hO0 it shall be measured, the custom IN
the city, in existence for seventy years before the
passage Of the act is to be taken into consideration
in the exposition of the law; aud that if he weighs
bushel in sixty, according to the custom it IS
all that is required. The was opened on Mon
/ day, by Mr.. Brent for complainant who contended
that when the 5th section of the act says that all
wheat shall be weighed and measured, it means that
every single bushel and particle of it shall be
weighed; that if you weigh but bushel in sixty
you only weigh l-59th part of it, which does not
comply with the act that he is paid by the BUSH
e, he must weigh by the bushe MIR. Brent con-
tended that the action brought by the inspector to
recover the fine a cirH and not criminal action,
and cited authority Sackel Rep. Z; Coke on
Lit 80; and Gill, 26. That, allowing the action
to be 4 criminal proceeding, the Court had right
to issue the injunction. IA Vine, Az; Simcoe,
49, That the custom could not be taken into con-
| sideration in constructing the law. 10 Ma, 4Si
Coke on Lit. A.
Mr. Brent was followed, on the part of the State,
by Mr. Thomas who urged, That all parts of the act
must be construed together that constituting the 9TH
and third sections together it clearly showed that
nasmuch as only part of the grain is to be in
spected to ascertain the quality of the whole, as
the act does not say hOu, in 'rhdt manner 1t shall
be weighed. the literal Interpretation of the act
is that one bushel in sixty only required to
tain the quantity. Mr.. Thomas cited authorl-
ties "a Gill and John Gill. 2. That the proceed
ing before the magistrate was criminal and not
civil proceeding. / Chitty Grim. Law, SAL. mat
Injunction cannot issue to restrain Il criminal pro-
ceeding, or in the nature of criminal proceeding.
r. Story Grim. Juris, S93; Nesey, 396.l }. That
at the time the in junction issued the case was then
pending before court of competent jurisdiction,
and equity will not interfere. s Gill john;
Paige 4. That if the complainant was aggriev-
ed, he had a right of appeal to the Court OF Com
mon Pleas. and said court having full power to try
the case equity will not interfere to oust 1T OF Its
jurisdiction New Const.; Act of 1882. That the
complainant had his remedies at law, if aggreved,
upon the bond of the Inspector, If he failed to per-
form his duty; and where there is a remedy at law,
equity will not interfere. This gentleman occupied
the remaining portion of Mondays session;
On Tuesday morning he was followed by Mr..
Price, for the complainant. This gentleman denied
the COnstitutionay Of the act of 1858, because 1t
allowed the Inspector to determine all disputes
between uyer and seller, which deprived the mer-
chants of right of trial by jury. In support OF
this position he cited Yerger, COS; Desverux,
4l9: Curtis, l25.
He was succeeded by Judge Chambers for the
State, who replied to the arguments OF Mr. Price,
relative to the constituonaity of the act referred
to. He said that he appeared as the representative
| of the farming interests of the State-to protect
them in their rights He examined the authorities
relied upon by Mr.. Price, and contended that tney
were not applicable to this case. The Judge critl
cay examined and anayzed the law. lie spoke
until the adjournment of court on Tuesday, ana yes
! terday morning concluded his argument, when he
took the ground that the action was criminal one,
and that this was not the tribunal before which 1t
+ should be heard.
The argument was concluded by Mr.. Nelson, VINO
urged the views and arguments of Mr.. Brent reia-
tive to the necessity under the necessity under the
law for the measuring weighing of every bushei
of a cargo of grain He then analyzed the inspec-
tion law point by point, in support OF that view,
and urged that the only thing adverse to their in
, terpretation of the law, usage, and that no
, usage could repeal statute. He also contended
that if Wareld had violated any law, such violation
had been the result of former violation Of the in
specton laws by Inspector General Frazier, who is
= now prosecuting an act caused by its own action;
I and also, that it could not with consistency be
urged that the case was criminal one, whilst Fra
n J zer was sueing for a claim designed for his own
4 pocket.
y The argument being concluded, the Judge stated
: that, as he desired time to examine the varlou:
: authorities quoted he would hold the case over
L., o,,ll rNn