The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1859-04-09


that when he bek ED the scue the man cast had pis
DOL and the man west had
P. " r. Van Wyck recalled by the prosecution testl-
ned that he could not at the distance which he was
from the parties, distinguish pistol in the hands Of
either.
KyIDEoH oHAxIEs rISDm.
Charles Winder testified that he arrived at the Club
house about quarter after two and remained there
until after the close Of the inquest Assumed charge OF
the body until the Mayor Besides the Artie
already named there sleeve buttons and q ring
taken from the body. Mr. b. Ogie Tayoe relative OF
the deceased, STOPPED and took these
Mr. Oud here proposed to offer the jury The pistol
which had been presented in court also the ball taken
from the body, as a part OF the evidence.
Mr.. Brady inquired what ground this pistol should
be handed 10 the jury The counsel for the prosecution
had dsclaied any knowledge of the which the
defence designed To pursue lie would enghten them.
He thought that the court would understand him when
he said that the defence would question that the
deceased TO his death by the wounds described by
the physicians. But TO this pistol it picked up
and handed TO the coroner In the Club house No
had seen II fired used. Ii could not be regarded
falling within the rule Of this res geae
Mr.. Guild replied that according 10 his understanding
of the evidence, il had been proven that the pistol
picked up the very spot where the first shot had been
fired He thought that both the pistol and the ball should
go to the jury in order that they might draw their
conclusions
The court sustained the District Attorney and the ps-
tol aud ball handed to the Jury.
Mr. 0uld. II your honor please, the United States
hiss closed its evidence In chief
Mr.. Radcliffe proposed that the Court shoui5 order
that the prosecution should call other Witnesses
especially Mr.. Butterworth, Mr. Woodbridge, and Robert
]. Walker. He would not occupy much Of the time Of
the court with discussion the necessity In reference
to the ends of justice that the government should call
all persons that knew anything about the transactions in
question. That might or might not be question Of
policy with the District Attorney But, If the speaker
held that position, he should conceive that II his
duty TO place every honest the stand who would
disclose any facts TO the matter under investigation
He then proceeded to call the attention of the Court to
m course in the case Of tho United States against Ed
wardsa which, In all its essential features rcsern
blcd the to which he calling the attention
Of the Court In this case, in which he himself With
Mr. Carlisle counsel for the defence certain witnesses
had been before the coroners inquest and retained In jail
witnesses for the government afterwards going before
the grand jury United States witnesses and afterwards
being suppressed by the District Attorney the Court had
decided that those should be called and they
and gave their evidence He contended that the decision
of the Court in this rested upon the fact Of the wit
having been twice cited by the prosecution and
not upon their having been put in jail The gentlemen
he had named had twice been summoned to appear for
the United States and the Court should follow the preoe
dent which it had established He supposed the othor
side would rely upon the decision Of the Court In tho
of Herbert but went TO urge why that decision
should not rule He then commented the course
of the District Attorney saying that he supposed he
of the gentlemen in question having been
ed before the grand jury.
Mr. Ond replied that he knew nothing about IL.
Mr. Carlisle l presume the court is that there
two different ways in which witnesses brought be-
fore the grand jury summoned by the United States
and as volunteer witnesses
Mr. ould said that in this proposition to compel the
United States to put three witnesses the stand of
them stood on similar ground, and (Butterworth
distinct ground They not summoned simply be-
their not the back Of the present
ment The speaker did not know what the gentleman
conceived to be the duty of the District Attorney in such
cases, did he expect to know certainly he should
not to the gentleman for such information Mr Rat
clis thought the District Attorney should 60 nosng
about the grand jury to ascertain what particular
class of witnesses 60 before grand jury volun-
teer in any case no knew than the speaker knew
or intended to know. He, District Attorney,
should certainly go TO the gentleman for infoA
ton In this any other matter He chose his own
oounseos He would state for his satisfaction that he
did not Mr.. Buttcrwoth go before the grand
jury for which he had not disclosed and should
not disclose hereafter He then proceeded TO show that
there proof that these parties had been
amincd before the grand jury in amy affecting the
life and safety of Daniel Z. Sickles
Mr. Magruder followed, claiming that IL the
bounden duty of the government TO every eye
witness to the Transaction The duty of the government
well the object of justice that all the facts
should be elected The defence asking for nothing
here 1t had been ruled by the very highest
thorities Mr.. NJ then cited number of authorities in
support of his position.
Mr. Carlisle replied on the part of the prosecution
holding that Ii absurd TO suppose the government
welded 10 every confederate who might happen have
testified at the preliminary examinations He then gave
n short history Of the of United States Edwards
cited by the defence The rossexamination In that
had been conducted by Mr.. Raclife, and he would do
him the justice TO say that tender examination
n compliant witness, he had laugh
ter.
The Court refused TO direct the District Attorney
place Buttcrworth upon the stand the ground that
the inquest at which he testified held a very short
time after the killing, and the United States not
bound by the action of the in sunmoning him.
With regard TO the prisoner having been committed upon
the oath OF Butterworh the Court thought it not
going too far say that the affidavit which be Butter
worth) made at that time friendly act towards the
prisoner and that it done prevent any thorough
investigation at that time.
The court refused the application in regard TO the 9TH
because there proof that they before the
grand jury in relation 10 this case.
Mr.. Brady. Then. understand my learned friend,
the District Attorney TO say that be has closed his tes
timony and that hereafter he give nothing but
butting evidence
The court assented and then notified the counsel that
the hour for adjournment bad arrived
The jury then conducted by the baili 10 their
quarters at the National Hotel. the prisoner
msndcd and the court adjourned
OFFICIAL.