The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-01-04

Sanderson the celebrated negro clown will make his first
appearance this season. and the entire company will be
engaged in the performance.
INDIA PANoRAMA.-This painting is drawing large au-
dences 1t will be exhibition every night this week
LA w INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs.-Hon. William L. Marshall
Judge There was nothing of public interest transacted
in this court yesterday.
IrY CIRCUIT CoURr.-Hon. William George Krebs,
Judge. Nothing done yesterday.
SUPERIOR CoURT.-Hon. H. Collins Lee, Judge The
following occupied yesterday:
Richard France rs John b and c. C. Egerton. Bill oil
exceptions made to the ratification of sales of certain prop
erty. On trial-Walls and Thomas for exceptants
Whitney and Thomas for complainant.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT.-Hon Wm. Fell
Giles Judge. The following occupied the court yester
r. Bond, administrator of Cozens u.s. Lloyd N Rogers
A billin equity. Argued and concluded Held under
curid.
CIRCUIT Court FOR BALTIMORE CoUNrY.-Hon. John
Fl. Price, Judge.
TowsoNTowN JAM 8, 1858.
Richard J. Cuttings, Esq, States Attorney prosecu
ting, assisted by Arthur W. Machen, Esq.
Yesterday fixed for the trial of Marion Crops and
Peter Corrie charged with the murder, on the night OF
the 9Th of November last, of poceocer Robert NJ Rig
don. The circumstances attending the murder fam
to all citizens. iigon the principal witness
in the of the State against Henry Gambr convicted
of the murder Of police officer Benton and after the rem
dou of the verdict of guilty in that case the
in search of and followed Rgdon to his own house
and alleged that Crops entered the yard and fired
the fatal shot, whilst Corre stood at the gate of the alley
leading to the yard.
William P Preston, ESQ, appears the counsel for
Corrie, and William P. Whyte, ESQ.,, for Crops.
The Court well filled with spectators althou gh
there not many present from Baltimore as might
have been anticipated.
Mrs. Rigdon the widow of the murdered officer was in
the Court room listening atentivey the counsel du-
ring the continuance of the argument. Mrs Corre was
also present in company with elder son. she seemed
feel keenly the situation almost
stantly.
The prisoners Crops and Corrie were not placed in the
prisoners box but occupied seee in corner of the
Court where they could and hear that trans
pired. They were both dressed neatly and presented
quite different appearance than what they had done
upon the day of their arragnment before the Criminal
Court of Baltimore.
On the opening of the Court, Mr. Gttings in reply to
Judge Price stated that the State ready proceed
trial, and ordered the Clerk to call the witnesses
The Court then asked the counsel for the defence if
they were ready to proceed.
Whereupon Mr.. Whyte, counsel for Marion Cropps
arose, and in substance said: ay please your Honor
desire make preliminary motion before proceeding
to trial The parties here indicted as tbey are ionv
for the murder of officer Rigdon suppose the State
officers desire to try them together and upon the
evidence. To this ask that a separate trial be
granted" Mr.. Whyte quoted authorities from Judge
Story reported in Mason 159 in which that Judge said
whee separate parties indicted and the evidence
the cause is separate separate trial in the is the
true doctrine of law. Also, from Judge Washington
Baldwin, ST. where he sad in noted case, the Sd rea
is sufficient for separate trial. where the one party
duplicates the oher,' Mason Ill separate trial was
granted heprincple of right State Smith, rede
1872 Cowan 140 Jones and Brown Also in this State
before Chief Justice Taney in the of the United
States Joseph White and Others who indicted for
casting vessel, which penalty is these cases
death All the above decisions to allow the parties
charged separate trials and my recollection
have parties charged been forced to trial Jointly
except in the of the State Rotten Granger and
Toner"
Mr. Whyte appealed to the Court in touching language
praying thata separate trial be granted his CLIENT great
injustice would be done Crops, for the statements
fssons &C. of Core would be of vital character and
the witnesses called by Cerre could be
for Crops. He concluded by saving. GAN ask for s
fair and impartial trial. honor should pause and stay
the hand that holds the life of man, the gift of God
and should attempt to take it from him Iegai
murder has been performed and hangman done his
duty There cases record where pa upon the
scatold confessed to murders for which innocent had
to die the ignominous death. And in conclusion appca
to the discretion of the Court and ask that separate trial
be granted unless the States officers show that public
justice will be hwarted and guilty parties eyade the
tce of the laws.''
Mr. Cuttings said it was not necessary to dis
cuss the matter unless the parties ready 20
trial
William p Preston, Esq, counsel for Corrie then arose
and stated that the motion he was about to make would
then proceeded to read the following which he submitted
to the Court.
STATE OF MARYLAND In the Criminal Court for Balti
rs. more county-Record of proceed.
MARION CROPS AND ngs transmitted from the Crimi-
PETER CoRRIE. nal Court of Baltimore
And the said Peter Corrie in the custody
Sheriff of Baltimore county, and being brought to the bar
of the court here in his proper person. and having
nearing or satin that the ought
at this time to proceed to the trial of said Indictment
Because all the business originating in said county to
which the record of said indictment has been removed
ready for and requires intervention of ury has not
been tried, dismissed continued otherwise disposed of
for the present term of said according to the
visions of the Acts of Assembly in such and
provided.
Signed PETER CoRR1E.
Mr. Preston then proceeded to argue in favor of the
motion to postponement
The Act Of Assembly chiefly relied upon by Mr. Preston
support OF the motion made by Peter
of 1920 chapter 1885, the 1st section of which reads
follows:
''Be it enacted by the General Assembly Of MARYLAND
That cause, cuI criminal, removed upon sugges
ton from county to another within the Sixth Judicial
District shall be taken for trial until all the business
originating in the county to which such be
moved ready for trial and which require the inter
venton of jury shall be tried dismissed continued or
otherwise disposed of for that term''
The I'd section makes the duty of the clerk to note on
the courts minutes the precise amount of time occupied
by removed causes after the business of the county
per has been disposed Of in order that the jurisdiction
from which the cause has been removed may pay only its
just proportion of the expenses of the trial.
Mr. Preston then said that in this the Court
strictly exercising special and Limited jurisdictions the
Court does not take this from the Grand Jury it
does not begin here does the record here it
comes from the city of Baltimore, removed to this Court
Court of special jurisdiction, and therefore the Court
cannot proceed to trial when objection is raised
against it.
The fact that this day named by the States officer
and also announced by the Court the day the trial
of this is nothing whereon they can necessarily
that it be proceeded with The Court exercises control
the by special provision of the law which
defined in the act of Assembly, and he therefore asked the
Court to postpone the trial.
In reference to the motion made by Mr. Whyte Mr.
Preston had nothing to say than to
he felt it his duty fully to in that motion That
fact had been placed fociby before the Court that the
deences of these prisoners anagonisc they are
antagonstic, far he had been able to learn. He
would refrain entering into views of what would be
the defence in the of Corre but he desired say
solemny here that he could not perceive how pri
soners could be tried together and they have trial
He said that he had exchanged sentence with
Mr. Wbye any other lawyer about the of Crops
but he stood there member bar to saw that he
believed upon examination the defence each would
be found to be decidedly of different characters As Mr.
Whyte had said, it would be found to be triangular
fight enabling the State to play of prisoner against
the other ana lberay and unjusty involving the diff
ferent defences. Mr. Preston then referred the ndct
ment, and read several of the of the same He
SAID the Indictment charges single act of shooting
discharge which the act of person. and charges
aiding and abetting the part of another and he
tended that in the examination of witnesses party's
would crminae the other he therefore prayed
the Court to try the prisoners separately
The motion of Mr.. Preston overruled by the court
when Mr. Machen on the part of the State replied Mr.
Whye. He said the prisoners should have a i'm
partial trial, and quoted number of authorities where
two and three parties jointly charged with murder
put upon their trials and tried together ex
minng the witnesses, that would be discretionary with
the Court whether they could be used not Wharton
on Homicide l6 IN substance says The stroke of one is
the stroke of all present. &c. If this was case where
the party who did the deed then they might be tried
separately but this is such case they are Jointly in
cted and jointly implicated. 1t is difficult matter to
get such large number of witnesses attend from day
to day, and as some seventy here to day. l do not
think they should be tried separately
Mr.. Cuttings contended that it obligatory the
part of the counsel for the prisoner show why
the parties should not be tried jointly and a separate
trial has been granted unless codes
shown; there is reported in the books
arate trial granted where the States resisted
that motion; the very books they rean from will show
that this day has been fixed upon for their trials
long notice given; the inconvenience witnesses
coming here and thing connected with this impor
tant cause demand that they go to trial and to
ie witnesses will testify he says he does not know
then why does he object? Mr. Cuttings spoke at conside
rable length in opposition to the motion and concluded by
asking the Court to overrule the motion.
Mr. Whyte replied that previous to this morning he
had never seen his client notice served upon him
that the trial would be called to-day but he was ready
to trial now but did not wish try his client jointly
with Peter Corrie did not know, neither did he
what Corrie witnesses would testsy to- They
Crops witnesses and should not be put upon the stand
for they might testify to evidence which he would not
ask them. This might be brought out by Mr.. Preston
while he might bring evidence by the witnesses for
Crops which Mr. Preston would wish to be brought
Mr. Whyte appealed to his honor in touching tones
referred to the manner in which his client forced
speedy trial. without consent without witnesses and
without time to prepare the indictment being found on
the fifth of November and his arraigned for trial on
sight. This he said had parallel in the annals of
history, and in conclusion he would offer motions
first humanity, and second the constitutional right guar
antied to man.
Mr. Preston again addressed the Court and referred to
18th Howeus State trials where separate trial was
granted application being made. In the the
United Stes Marsham before Judge Story Judge
sad lin case where separate trial is asked for
objected to by the States officer and denied
by the Court it is not matter of right but always
tended through courtesy" Mr. Preston also said that w
the parties not tried separately it would be trial
at all, and that he not prepared his friend Mr.
Whyte to to trial. could not do it, it is utterly mpos
sble There fifty seven witnesses summoned by the
State, forty-four of whom have been summoned within
the last five days He the pats of the location
where the affair occured.n
here led bund dJa tba