The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1858-05-29
INTERESTING CAsE.-LraAL oursrrox

INTERESTING CAsE.-LRGAL QUESTION
IsyoLvgD.-The attendance at the Mayors Court
argument in the case of p. H. Gibson, held to bail
on the 2lst instant, in the sum of $500, to appear
yesterday morning to answer a contempt of court
Mr. Gibson, it will be remembered was called be-
fore the Mayor to testify 10 tho case Of John II. G.
Tyler and Joseph r. Young, summoned to answer
for uDsettng dry goods boxes on the sidewalk Of
Broad street, on the night Of the 10th. After be-
ing sworn, the Mayor propou sded to him this
question: "Did yoa see John III. g. Tyler aud yo.
.eph r. Young ON the lot OF Mr.. Benjamin Davis,
corner of 9th aud Marshall streets. last Sunday
night, and II so, at what hour " Witness respond
ed to this question II decline to answer, because
by 80 doing, may crimiDate myself" At this
stage, the case was adjourned, to enable his honor
to exanioe authorities to see how far the declen.
ton OF witness was contempt OF court.
Yesterday morning, when the case was called,
Col August for the defence, with an arm full Of
books before him, informed the Mayor that be had
brought up some of the authorities bearirg upon
the question, but had to apologize for not bring
ing more Had he designed doing 90 no two
men OF his stature could have stood up under the
immense pile Of volumes to be found. He sup
posed no rule of law was m re clearly laid dewn
"a all authorities, than that witness could nos
be made to give evidence which might crimioate
himself. witness is sworn, not to answer sues-
tions propounded to him, but to tell "the truth,
the whole truth" aud ths moment he opened his
mouth he could keep back nothing without sub
ecting himself to perjury. Ii the witness were
uessrs. Tyler aud Young we're Mr.. Davis lot,
would not that assertion have a tendency to Grim.
iuate hms Those gsntlsmeu, after being found
guilty, could be called to testify against the wit
ness-and il ths were done, would not the facts
elected from him have tended to his crimina-
tioni Col. August then read Judge MarshAIrs
opinion in the ceiebrated Burr case, fully fortify-
ing his position, that "a witness could not be COM
eelled to testify Ia any case, where his evidence
might tend TO his own crimination" he further
road from 1st Eoelish Law aud Equity Reports
Of Shaw vs. hercier; and from 5th Grattan,
in UowslIs case
The Mayor here interrupted Col. August, and
saia - ~as satisfied that no man was bound to
accuse himself. and man could be forced 10
criminate himself. All the law books laid down
This principle, and il was therefore needless to
,rgue it. If the counsel had authorities to show
hat the prisoner to be the judge as to wheth-
-r his evidence would criminats himself or not he
should like 10 hear them.
Col August again read from Chief Justice Mar
.halrs opinion in the case Of Burr, where the rule
was laid down that the witness was 70 be sole
Judge whether to answer would directly or re-
uoteiy criminste himself He next cited from 4th
Weudal, in the case OF the People rs. Msther, the
following sentences: .The expression that wis-
less cannot be compelled to answer q question
that eliminates or has tendency to cTiminsts
himself, means that ne Is not required 20 answer
question, If by 80 doing be must disclose what will
shew have a tendency TO shew, that he 10 guilty
# a crime for which he Is yet liable to be nun
she'd" And In Sth WendalI, Reliipg u.s. The Pso.
plc, the following paragraph is be found: "The
rnle does not require that the answer might tend
o prove him guilty OF criminal onence--it is
sufficient that IL may have tendency 10 produce
that result" The learned Judge in giving the
sbove opinion, says: II do not know that IL Ia es-
seutial that the answer should be such as may be
Ised as evidence against him on o criminal prose-
cution In order to exclude the question. II the an
swer may shew that he has been ulity of criminal
offence or Incurred penalty, and thereby lead 10
1r induce criminal proceedings against him upon
trial, spprehend be is still excused from giving
tt, and the question must be o,esruled.n Col. A.
| read from other authorities, all giving the same
pinion upon the subject Of selfcr imiDatiop; and
| .howed by argument that his client was net
1 bliged to open his mouth, IL BY so doing be was
% form u single link In the chain OF testimony
| neresfter to be adduced to cri1ninais him.
| The Mayor Invited attention TO the statuts;
which declared that no statement made BY q wit.
ness, should be used as evidence against him.
Cot. August admitted the fact that the statement
4 witness could not be used against hiu,--bat
ne also contended that q witness was not required
10 answer because OF that fact. II be were TO Say
| shat he saw A and perform unlawful act, that
statement could not be used TO his preindice--but
1 the statement itself might lead to the calling
other witnesses and to his epnyictiou. The only
true way for the witness ~ decline answering,
l a. his client had doue.
Mr. John Williams followed Col. August for tho
iefence aud quoted from Greenieaf and other au-
thor ter TO prove that his client had taken cor
| rect position.
| The Mayor thought that the statute referred to
| vas passed for tue protection Of voluntary Wit
aesses. He Was satisfied in his own mind that the
/ yiew taken by Col. August, that stbe witness ID
/ 20 be the sole Judge Of his answer csnnot DO
| enaintained. The question, however, IL impof.
| sant one, and bis Homer therefore dstermined 10
AXE until Tuesday next, 10 examine IL thoroughly
1 dessrs. Tyler, Young and afbson wefe thereupon
1ed to bail 10 appear before his uoaor next Tues
| lay morning, at O'Clock, 70 answer the several
| charges against them.