Weekly American. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1858-1858, 1858-01-30


mean 60 insist, that under well settled pinciplei
Of Jaw, pertaining equally TO the trial Of civil and
criminal cases, under a complaint alleging one
singl. offence. A is indebted TO Is in three single
promissory notes; each is a Substantive, separate
and distinct cause of action. He is liable to be
sued on one or all of them. B may sue him, and
50 frame his action as oput him upon his defence
as to each one Of the three at the same time hat
TO do this he must declare upon all three in his
declaration; he must set out his cause OF action
upon each he must give the party notice OF the
extent OF his demand, 50 as to put him upon his
defence. But ifiDstead OF embracing the three
notes in the same declaration, he chooses to put
in ono only, every man knows that his recovery Is
confined 10 that one, and on the trial OF his case
his testimony must be restricted to the particular
cause Of action. Suing upon one note he cannot
give evidence touching the other notes--all that
belongs to those not put in suit being foreign TO
the issue submitted to the jury.
This rule prevails equally in criminal cases.--
There are many offences that may be united in the
same indictment and prosecuted together II the
prosecution desires to enquire into several offences
those several offences must be set ont in the in
dictment. The law requires that they shall be set
out separately In distinct counts, and when the
Jury comes 10 be empanelled upon the trial of the
case il is allowable for the prosecution to give EVIL
dence touching each one of the several offences
thus set out. But if several offences have been
committed, and the Indictment charges but one, as
in the case of civil action, the testimony must be
Q ,nfned to that one, and it is not allowable to
give to the jury or let the jury hear evidence that
belonged 10 the others. You will perceive, gen.
tlemen, from the terms of the indictment as read
to you that it is couchcd in general terms. 1t
charges meeting together for the purpose OF dis
turbing the peace not at the first precinct of the
Fouth Ward--there is no such specific allegation
but meeting together to distulb the public peace
in this county, followed by an allegation simply
that that purpose was consummated. Now, UNI
der this indictment, thus general in its terms, it
was compel mt for the prosecution TO give eyi.
dence of any act committed by these parties tend
ing to show that at any time and at any place
within the limits Of this county, riotous disturb
ance of the public peace had been committed by
them.
1t was competent for heprosecution to call wit
ncsses to testify in respect to the alleged disturb
ancss in the Seventh Ward, or at the Navy Yard,
or at any other place within the proper jurisdic-
tional limits. So it was compel MT under this
general FORM for the prosecution to select amongst
the various alleged disturbances any one particu-
lar case, and make that the subject Of tie prose-
Icution but whilst this liberty is allowed to the
prosecution, whilst the law tolerates this, it is
required, and il is rule necess ry for the attain
evidence OF particular act alleged to constitute
the offence charged, ever afterwards the case
must be confined TO that, and the prosecution must
stand or fall according to the election.
Now, gentlemen, the District Attorney under
took TO prove TO you from the testimony, that
there had been various riotings OIL this famous
first day of June. He undertook TO prove to you
that there had been riot i'll the morning between
the hours Of nine and ten o'clock, and he de-
handed at your hands the CONVECTION of ccrtai,.
of the parties for participation in that off nee.
He undertook 20 show that at the first precinct OF
the Fourth Ward, between the hours of nine and
tel o'clock, a hot was Committed, and that some
of the parties in this Indictment were participant
in IT, No satisfied wi h resting his case there
not content with hitting the enquiry TO the
occurrences that belonged to the alleged morning
not, he calls your attention to what occurred at
subsequent period Of that day, in the afterno, n,
and undertook TO show by the evidence that
there was another riot near The scene of the first
one in which other Of the parties enumerated in
the indictment were participating, and those
others different from those who are alleged to
have been concerned In the first riot. Not only
that, gentlemen, but he undertook TO show rat
there we're in fact separate and distinct riots
in the afternoon, occurring in the presence OF the
military--one in front OF the Market House,
of which was, not 10 interfere with the holding of
the polls, not to interfere wi h the right OF the
voters to cast their votes there but 10 oppose the
Executive authority in its efforts to keep the
peace-an offence distinct from the morning
offence, having no connection whatever with it
and directed to another aud "a different purpose
He undertook TO show that there was still another
offence which consisted In opposition 10 the efforts
Of the Mayor TO have the polls re-opened, CON-
mitt, d at a different place from that, dire cted
against the constituted authorities, the one being
ia front of the Market House, across the street,
the other being at the polls, each directed TO a
different purpose, and participated ia by different
persons. Not content with that, gentlemen he
has introduced still another, TO which he called
your attention, in which he seeks to duplicate the
two Stewarts being an act committed after those
several disturbances to which | have referred
were put an end TO, in different place, and at a
ddei ent time, and directed, too, 10 a wholly DIFF
fcrent purpose. refer TO the alleged assault on
the fugitive Irishmen by Daniel Stewart and
Isaiah Stewart, which took place, according to
my recollection OF the testimony, neither about
the Market House nor about the polls, ut at
some remote part Of the city Here, then, are
four separate and distinct acts Of alleged riot
occurring at different times in different places
directed 70 different objects, charged to have
been participated in, not by all Of these parties al
the same time, but by some one or the other o.
them, at different times, acting separately and
ap ri from each other. Now, gentlemen, IL il be
true that this indictment alleges one offence, and
but one-if il be true that in order 10 obtain
verdict Of guilty against any or all OF theml th,
prosecution must prove offence participated il
by them all and II 1t be true that according q
the rul Of evidence the prosecution is restricted
! to proof OF one offence and one only, how come
1t that in the conduct Of this csse the jury hav,
! been addressed at large upon the subject Of fou
several alleged offences, and they are asked I,
convict these parties not under the accusation
contained in the iadctment, but to convict then
upon the address OF the learned attorney, IL the,
shall find from the evidence that they wer
| severally implicated in the one or the other o
these offencesf How is IL to be accounted 20
that under this special indictment, governed b.
the best settled rules OF law, your patience ha
been so trcspassed upon, the time OF this cour
so occupied, in investigations that do not peria
to the case submitted TO your Gentlemen, thi
first day OF June must ever remain n memorable
era in the history Of this city; and he who woul
write It's history would fall very far short OF per
forming the task Of faithful historian IL he wer
70 omit TO record the events Of this trial. o.
that day the blood OF your fellow. citizens wa
shed on the public streets. Men admitted to b
unconnected wit these disturbances, TO have ba
no participation whatever in these alleged riot.
assembled at a public place for pu lie purpose
and lawful purpose, iDoffcnsive, unonrndng
aye, one, at least, standing in his own doorwa