Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-04-19

Dy argument, that u was necessary 10 know as |
TO their opinion upon tho several averments Of
the indictment Judge Bliss replied that
this was contrary to all custom 10 inquire in
respect TO every idea contained in the question at
issue This matter was discussed and argued
by Mr. BAcEUs, but the Court held that he
might read the indictmentto 10 the Jury and make
the general inquiry as 10 any opinion formed,
but that they would not consume time by such
particular inquiry. The indictment was then
read to tho Jury by Mr. GRIswoLD, when Mr.
Bishop was asked the questions if he
believed the boy escaped from his lawful mas
ter:-if he had made up his mind whether this
Jennings was lawful agent Of Bacon iii
Bacon made acknowledgment of his ownership
before the Clerk Of the Court whether Bacon
made out this power Of Attorney to Jennings
whether the boy at the time Of the rescue,
was in the custody Of Jennings whether the
defendant Langston did rescue the negro boy
John, from Jennings, who held the boy by yr-
! tue Of power of Attorney from Bacon, who (Ba-
con) was the lawful owner of the boy,-and
whether the defendant Langston was aware at
the time the rescue that the boy was really
slave held by lawful authority. All Of these
! questions were oyerruled by the Court az i'm.
proper to be asked Mr.. BAcKus said he pro-
posed asking all these questions ofall the Jur.
OTIS, and supposed he was to understand that all
were overuled lie then asked the Juror what
means he had for forming an opinion upon the
/ H., 4 H., l. Al.
pers, and had not found an opinion The same
inquiry was made of Mr. Garrett This Juror
confessed that he had not found an opinion as
to the guilt Of Langston, but he believed
the boy was slave: This broaght up
discussion as to challenging the juror
upon this point. The defence asked to have the
juror excused upon the ground of this opinion
but the Court declined to excuse him upon that
ground On being further questioned, the iu-
ror said that he supposed the slave did escape
and was illegally rescued He was allowed to
stand aside-being decidedly too decided a cha
racter to act upon the jury. Mr.. Daniel Cleve-
land was called in his place. In like manner
Mr. Husscy was questioned, the counsel for the
prosecution several times interruptng the ques
tioning, but the Court held that it was compe-
tent to inquire on such points as''would tend to
bias fair verdict
All Of the jurors were similarly questioned.-
Mr.. Case, having formed too much OF an opin
ion, was excused. s. T. Looms was called in
his place.
Mr.. Howell being challenged, Mr.. J. NJ. Arm
strong took his place, but being challenged, Mr.
B. BrOwnelI was called in his place
Mr.. Loomis wished to be excused ON account
, of business at home, Mr.. H. b. Platt was call
, ed in his place.
Mr.. Brownell being challenged by the defence
Mr. Geo A Davis was csled in his place.
, MIR. Butts being challenged by tia proseou
e ton Mr.. j u Smith was called in his place,
. Mr.. Platt having formed an opinion, Mr. VIM
b. Hall was called in his place.
!. No further objection being raised the follow
+ ing Jurors were sworn:
Harvey Rice, Richard Hussey,
y John NJ. Hughes, J. II. Crittenden,
Andrew CoZad, Daniel Cleveland,
John X. Bishop Geo, A. Davis,
Levi Johnson, j. W Smith,
2 William Burton, VIM. b. Hall
The preliminares being arrange the case {
the United States vs. Charles Langdon, for siC
ing and abetting in the escape of the lugitiy
,r slave John, was opened by District AttOme
=, BrLDEN, in remarks to the Jury setting fort
what was claimed by the prosecution and reat
ing from the law on The point of the recovery
u iugtives, Also, what was charged and expec
cd to be proved against the defendant.
Mr. RIonLE set forth the position of the d
70 fence and somo of the circumstances whic
IA would be shown by the testimony which the
., would bring iorward.
), Mr.. John Bacon was first worn, His te
~ tmony was substantially the same as it hl
been in the former case, which has been iul
reported in our columns and need not be r
nj peated.
p Just before adjournment Mr.. RIDDLE remark'
q that he understood the Court to intimate in 7
OF marks made in the morning, that the Journ
,I entry relative to the oancelling of the recogr
n. zanees of the accused, be struck out and th,
n. be released without entering any new recogr
he zance, and DO considered in the Same positi,
ho which they occupied prior 10 Friday last ~
nj Court replied that they could go out aga
a. upon signing new recognizanoes as before N
nd RDDLE remarked that they would do nothii
nm of the kind and 50 the matter stands Tn
an will issue no new papers.