The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-03-13
LAW INTELLiGE ENCE.

DISTRICT CoURr OF THE UNITED srArEs.-Before
Hon. William Fell Giles, Judge. The following
business was transacted yesterday:
Henny and Ogden, owners of the schooner VIM.
K Parran Us. the steamer Louisiana. Libel to re-
cover damages sustained by collision between the
steamer William X. Parran and the steamer Louis
lana, on the Doth of February, 1858. Not con-
cuded. w. NJ. Addison and r. R. Battee, Esqs.,
for libelants; William Schey and William X. Falls
for respondents.
CRIMINAL CoURT-Before Hon. Henry Stump,
Judge Milton Whitney, Esq, States Attorney,
prosecuting. The following business was transacted
Yesterday
State Us. George A. Mcgee, convicted of the
charge of bribery and false imprisonment Motion
for new trial on the ground that the verdict of
the jury was against the law and against the eyi-
dence.
The argument in this cause was opened by James
Malcolm ESQ.,, on behalf of the traverser. He re-
cited the evidence elected before the jury during
the trial and contended that of the witnesses
gave testimony which could be construed to con-
firm the charges alleged in the indictment. 1t had
been shown that Mcgee received money to compro-
mise the case at the request of the witnesses of the
State and that the money was rendered in accord
ance with the conditions OF the request. When he
received the money, he stated to the party that 1t
was to compromise the case, and there was not the
slightest evidence that he had extorted money, or
had attempted to do so.
His object none other than to settle the mat
ter between the party who committed the assault
and the witness VINO Jlle
In doing this he did no more than the States At
torney was in the habit of dOing-and in fact had
done the same in this very case afterwards. Mr.
NJ animadverted upon the conduct of the jury in
rendering the verdict which they did, and charged
upon them that they were influenced by improper
er motives in coming to a conclusion as to the
| guilt of the traverser. 1t was case winch,
should the necessity OF separating questions OF law
and evidence as it demonstrated that the jury knew
nothing at all of law, and not acquainted with
! Al. nf tha hrih had
been considered the palladium of civil and religious
| liberty but were not such since they were made
Judges of the law and the fact. 1t had now become
! a question whether they should be influenced ii
! in their verdicts by evidence or by prejudice. He
| then proceeded to argue the law of the case anC
dwet extensively upon the decisions in similar trials
Mr. Whitney followed on behalf of the State anC
proceeded to discuss the law In relation to bribery
he contended that the evidence adduced entirely
sufficient to Justify the verdict of guilty rendered
by the jury, and insisted that the court should over
rule the motion. He defended the jury from the as
pensions that had been cast upon them by the gen
tleman who preceded. him, remarking that they hat
faithfully performed their duty, and that it remain
ed for the court to administer proper punishmen
for the offence of which the trayerser had beel
found guilty.
The concluding argument for the defendant wa
ade by S. A. Leakin, Esq, who set forth that hi
client was a prosecuted instead of a prosecute
man; that the law of the entirely at vari
ance with the evidence, and that the finding of tn
jury was inconsistent with both the law and tn
facts
The Court remarked that it would write out il
opinion of the case and file the same hereafter; bu
at present would give verbal opinion on the mo
ton for a new trial, and the punishment of tn
traverser of the same is not granted. 1t is impor
tant that the distinction between the common lay
and statute law should be kept up. The act of As
sembly of 1909 made the offence of which the ira
verser adjudged guilty great felony, punish
able by confinement in the Penitentiary, and if in
dictad undpr IL he WOu1d have had a better right c
striking Jurors than he had under the indictmen
for a misdemeanor. As he was not tried under tn
act of 1909 he would not punish him under that law
Law was the security of liberty and it was rgh
that its distinction should be kept up.
1t thought the magistrate did wrong in comprc
missing the case; he had right to do, or to tr
cases. it was their duty to make examinations an
to send the cases to the Court 1t was his duty
know this much law. The Court and States atto
ney could compromise because they were SO en-