American Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1855-1860, 1858-05-27
FinaIo oftne ConneIIY Case.

when Judge Leavtu proceeded 10 denver
his decision overruling the motion TO grant
W.M. Connolly new trial.
He said il had not been specifically OBJ
iscied that the verdict was contrary 70 the
evidence. Defendants counsel had taoit-
" admitted tha: the allegations in the in-
dictment had been proven SO far as the
material facts were involved, snG had ,urg-
ed their objections upon certain, alleged
errors ofiaw on the,psEt Of the Court in
its Instructions to the Jury.
He conceived that the mere fact OF Mr.
Robert Savage. one ofth Jurors. being q
De putty u. s. Marshall did not disquslify
him for juror, aud the Court was satis6-
ed that the Office had not influenced Mr..
Savage. He was Deputy U. s. Marshal
only nominally. being resident Of Gusrn-
lsey courtyard had accepted the appoint
ment as matter offavor { to tho Mar
shal. and not ofp-oft to himself. (credat
Judaess. his duties being limited 10 the
occasional service Of process in his own
peighborhood He was dependent on the
Marshal, and did not exercise any Of the
functions Of the Office while attending up.
on the Court to which he had been sum.
monsd In the ordinary course Of service
as one Of the regular jurors for the term.
The next objection was the alleged err
ror Of the court in its instruction to the
Jury as to the true construction Of the SEQ
ton Of the Fugitive Slave act upou, which
the verdict was predicated.
The Court had instructed the jury that
the allegation in the indictment. that the
harboring and concealing Of the defendant
must be such as to prevent the discovery
and arrest Of the alleged fugitives, that 10
make out this offsuse, Il was not necessary
for the prosecution 10 prove thatthe dis
covery and arrest Of the fugitives had been
actually defeated-that it was not neces-
sary to show an actual. permanent loss Of
the slaves-that the true meaning Of the
word prevent, as used in the statute. was
to obstruct 10 hinder-that this was the
meaning given by Webster, who, notwith-
standing the criticism OF the defendants
counsel, was referred to by the Court, as ac-
knowledged by all Americans as the high
est standard aulhoiity upon such questions;
in this particular, Webster was sustained
both by Johnson and Walker, and the
same Inference as to the meaning Of the
word is derived from the fact that it was
in harmony with the general usage and
purposes OF the statute, and with tho use
) Of the same word in the first clause Of tht
section under consideration, in which the
words hinder. obstruct and prevent arr
> used synopymousy.
! The Court feltperfectly clear that ther'
: had been no error in its instruction TO th'
. jury upon this point, ,.
The next argument was that introduces
: 10 prove that the alleged fugitives had be
Q come free pers.n by coming into Ohio
' upon previous occasions for temporar
r purposes. with the consent Of their master
: and that their voluntary return to Ken
5 tucky did not destroy in Kentucky th
/. statutes which had been thus recognized
, The Court thstthe uegativeof tli
# proposit on hadbeen corclusively establish
r ed by the Uniform decisions Of the Kentuck
d Courts, & that the decision Of the FEEDERS
Q Courts even prior to the decision iu,theDre
i. Scott Case. were quite as uniform in dec
: ding that the question under the Constitr
g tioa OF the United States and the Fugitiv
n Slave act, was to be referred solely and
d nally to the laws Of that State from whic
10 it was shown that the fugitives had escaI
,. ed. ia'His
d The next objection to the charge Of Il
o Court was founded upon the allegatic
Il that the Court hal inclined to instruct Il
70 Jury that Connolly was not bound as
v matter Of law. 10 De acquainted with II
y laws and judicial decisions Of Kentucky.
le The Court did not instruct the jury thu
in it was incumbent upon the prosecutio
clearly to prove that Irwin and Augelir
/. Broadhus In fact owed service and labt
is TO Mr.. Withersund the laws OF Kentuck
!. thst they had escaped therefrom. and th
10 the defendant had knowledge or notice
If these facts. '
/. The prosecution proved circumstance
|, from which, that knowledge was fairly
ID be inferred; and if, in addition. it hs
!. shown 6y his letters. that he was fully a
Of prised Of the facts stated, any erroneol
le opinion that Connolly might have ente
A. tanned as to the effect aud operation OF Il
is laws Of Kentucky. would not exonera
IS him from the legal responsibility attac
y ing to his conduct.
o Upon the whole, the court saw no rea
t. on, upon any Of the groands alleged. {
20 disturbing the verdict; and believing th
A. the defendant had had fair trial, 4
ID Court could not feel authorized or justi6,
Or in granting the motion.
= Hon. Thomas Corwin said the prision
cd was in court awaiting sentence. T
mt Court inquired il anything further was
a. be stated. and there being no RESPOND
,d SENTENCE was passed. Judge Leavitt sa
that the highest penalty for the Offer
w prescribed by the State was $1,000 a
Iat and imprisonment for six mouths. B
%. the Court did not consider it necessary
ng inaict the extreme penalty. There We
\ circumstances which justified the impo
I'm ton Of the slightest punishment consists
IN with the proper enforcement Of the law. /.
ed The Court would then require the defer
o. ant to pay a fine Of ten dollars aud be i
m, prisoued during period Of twenty da
Of ia the county jail. a t@as
in After sentence was passed number
to persons approached the prisoner to expr
100 their sympathy, or to congratulate him l
ng on the unexpected clemency Of the Cou
re- He appeared in tolerably good spirits.
ao ,what ;.,l:nn.nt olas min that ,