The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-09-23


french sailor, will be taken up this morning Mr.
whitney said he desired to try all of these cases
| soon as possible, as the captain of the ship wa
anxious TO sail; the States witnesses being part
the crew, he did not wish to delain the yesse
longer than was utterly necessary.
Edward j. Ashcroft, indicted for counterfeitino
and passing forged check for 5000 on the Frank
lin Bank dated Sept. 49, 1859, in the name of BeIt
Bowie Co., was then placed in the box.
Ihe indictment was read to him by the Clerk
ana to the question, care you guilty or not guilty
Oh tne matter whereof you stand indicted
Ashcroft repled-'Guilty, and | throw myseIl
upon the clemency of the Court"
Ihe Court then sentenced him to confinement in
seven months
In the case of John Siglefoos, Mr.. Whitney said
that he had issued attachments against three of the
States witnesses and they had been returned non
est four witnesses were present for the State and
he would take the case up and run the risk.
John Sigletoos was then called and took his seat
In the prisoners box He is indicted Jointly with
John Lemon and Henry Duvall, (alreadv convict.
ed, for the murder of Christian Fischer on the
night OF the 18th September, 1858. by shooting him
win pistol, lntiicting wound upon the right
SIDE OF the breast, from which wound the said
Fischer instantly died.
Charles Ia. Kraft, Esq, appeared for the pris-
oner.
The regular panel of jurors were sworn upon
their ro!r dire and the following jury was selected:
Robert NJ. Hill, William Wier, Joseph Stevens,
John W. Hail., William Ridgeway, John R. Davis,
James c: Perry, Joseph F. Wills, Israel Riggin,
Leonard Pouder, r. S. Fenner and Thomas Cannon.
Inc Jury was sworn and charged in due form by
the Clerk -
Mr. Whitney then stated to the jury the facts in
the case and what it would be necessary for the
state to prove to convict the prisoner.
The evidence elected in this case is the same rs
brought out on the trial Of Henry DuvaI, which
was fully published at the time
Inc witnesses examined yesterday were Gotlieb
Fisher brother of the deceased, the wife of Goteb
Fischer, and Mary Smith.
The facts brought out were simnIv that on tba
night OF the 18th of September last rattle was
being held at the house of Gotlieb Fischer on the
corner OF Howard and Montgomery streets where
a considerable party OF young people, male and
female, had collected; that between IL and II
O'Clock party Of men came up Howard
street, and stopped in front of the door,
which had been closed; that admittance
was demanded by John Lemon, a police officer
which was refused; that the door was pushed open
and John Lemon entered, crying "come on boys'
that some fifteen persons followed Lemon into the
room, he and Henry Duval being in advance; that
other by person unknown and that Immediately
CHRISTIAN Fischer exclaimed ''I am shot" and
ran into the yard of the house
There was no evidence to show that Siglefoos was
present at the time or committed any overt act
The only witness, who testified the trial of Hem
ry Duvall to the presence of SgefOOs, at the time
OF the occurrence, a man named George c.
Grice, whose presence the State was unable to pro-
cure, although attachments had been issued for
him.
The evidence of Grice, as given at Duvall's trial
was read by consent, to the jury, but not as tes-
mony in the case.
The evidence being concluded, the case was sub.
mltted to the jury, without argument who render
ed a verdict of ''not guilty"
Mr.. Whitney said to the Court, that he would
have entered the plea of not guilty before but from
the circumstances surrounding the case, he pre-
ferred the facts to be presented to the iurv
Court pt ad AZ.
morning at 10 O. oclock,
Tne Grand Jury ordered the discharge from Gus
tody of Stephen Cropper, who was arrested for
having thrown away the pistol by which Wm H.
hands of George Burke.
CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CrrY-Hon. VIM,
George Krebs, Judge
The following occupied yesterday:
Hamilton Easter and others u.s. Lawrence John
son and others; injunction to prevent the CITY
Passenger Railway Company from lavine down a
double track on Baltimore street, between North
and Sharp streets-before reported.
The respondents in this case put in their answer
which, together with accompanying papers, covers
slXty-hVe pages of manuscript They answer as
length the general averments in the bill of CONT
paint and also the specific heads of grievances re-
capitulated in said bill.
They DENY that the ordinance granting the right
to build the railway is utterly illegal, passed
without lawful authority, and incapable of con-
terrlng any authority on any person whatsoever
On the contrary, they say that the Mayor and City
Council had full authority to provide for the i'm
provement of the public streets in the manner
contemplated, &c; that the respondents, as as
sIgnees, have full powers to construct said i'm
prOvements.
That assuming that the ordinance is LEGAL and
valid exercise of the powers of the city. it is not
competent for this Court to limit or modify lis
operation or obstruct its execution, in the eff
tort to reconcile the convenience of the public
in the matter of travel on said RAILWAYS with
supposed interests Ste1 rio nf tha
public at large in and to the streets of the CITY
and those OF the complainants and others having
property on the same. That the discretion of the
mayor and City Council, when exercised within
the scope OF its delegated authority, is absolute
and 1t is to be assumed that as a legal conclusion
the Improvement authorized within such limit will
create no such conflict of public with private in
terests or convenience, will justify the interpo-
slton OF this court, as is proposed by the COM
plainants.
The respondents deny that the laying down and
use OF the railway tracks on Baltimore street are
or will be, in the construction thereof or in their
results when consummated, permanent danger
Gus and damaging nuisance to the business and
property of the compainants said street. On the
contrary, they insist that the Improvements contem
plated by the said ordinance we're and are i'm
peratvely required by public convenience, and are
calculated, in their results, generally, to promote
the convenient of said streets by the public and
TO advance the pecuniary interests of individuals
having property and doing business on the line of
such improvements.
The Withdrawal of Noah Walker as party to
the injunction, the respondents think furnishes a
very strong corroboration of their averment that
the laying OF the double track, &c, will improve
the value OF property.
Abiding to the objections of Hamilton Easter
they say that they have caused an enumeration to
De made OF carriages actually stopping before the
door OF said complainant for the space of six days.
between the 9th and the 10th OF this present month
OF September, between the hours of nine and three
clock OF each day; and that the 5th, the whole
number OF carriages stopping there was II; on the
6th 70: on the 9TH, II; the 8th, %; on the 9th
3; and on the 10TH 8; and that the largest number
stopping at one time was 5, which were all ranged
alongside the curb of the said complanants and in
no one instance was there formed double line or a
carriage ranged abreast of another carriage and
the respondents submit that the railway by increas-
ing the facilities for travel of thousands will COM
pensate the complainants for any loss or inconve-
nience.
As regards Mr.. Shoemaker, the respondents say;
that his business ntereres both with the travel of
the street and the sidewalks, and in the manner in
which it is at present conducted is a general
nuisance.
They deny the right of the complanants, who
are not citizens and corporators of the said city,
Jointly with Others who are citizens and corpora
tors to invoke this Court in the protection OF rights
which belong exclusively to citizens and corpora
tors. And they deny that there is any sufficient
case made of wrong done threatened to the citi-
zen and corporator to justify the interposition of
this Court.
The respondents insist that they are now engaged
IN good faith in executing the powers with which
they are clothed by the ordinance and the assign
ment in the manner and form and pursuant to the
directions and acquisitions of said ordinance and
were so engaged publicaly and notoriously for
considerable period anterior to the filing of the in
junction in this case.
The respondents say that although they may have
the privilege of devatng with their lines of rail
way from Baltimore street, on the south through
South, Lombard, and Hanover streets, and on the
north through North, Fayette, and Eutaw streets
yet that such deviation cannot be made without in
creased cost to the respondents, and without inter
tering materially with the public interests and the
convenience OF those who may have business in said
street between Hanover and South streets.
The respondents admit that they have entered
into contracts with certain of their co-defendants
for the construction for these respondents and
under their supervision, of the improvements afore-
said. And as the said co-defendants interested
only as the agents of these respondents it is submit
ted that they not necessary parties to this suit
the respondents undertaking that the judgement of
this Court in this behalf shall be respected by their
said co-defendants
And the respondents pray that the injunction
granted in this cause may be dissolved and they
dismissed with their costs, &c.
Accompanying the answer is a petition signed by
htty-hve merchants, firms and others, who '.feel-
ing an interest in the trade of Baltimore street. do
request that double track shall be layed on the
sald Baltimore street called for by the charter"
Another petition is signed by sixty-four mer-
chants, firms and others, on baltimore street. be-
tween North and Sharp Streets who considering
the laying of single track (by the City Passenger
hallway Company detrimental to their busi-
ness by making it nconvenient to the citizens and
the public do protest against it, and pray that a
double track be laid, as was first intended %