The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-10-01

TOR an assault with intent TO XIII Adam Stlckel. MIR.
Leakin said that as the jury in the failed to
agree and had been discharged, the traverser stood
in the same position as before his trial. He was
charged with misdemeanor, which was bailable
offence and he hoped the Court would take bail in
| the case.
The Court agreed with Mr. Leakin, that the
sealed verdict brought in by the jury amounts to
nothing at ALL but it would not take bail at present.
Mr.. Leakin.-"Does the Court refuse to take bail
| in the case ?''
! The Court.-''No, don't refuse to bail him, but
will not take the bail to-day; will take it some
| other time
Mr.. Leakin-"Well Sir, if the prisoner cannot
get his rights in this court, l will go to another
court, have habeas corpus taken out for the party
| and get the bail fixed.'
Mr. Leakin subsequently applied to Judge Lee
for writ of habeas corpus, but trial progressing
in the Superior Court the case could not be heard
Immediately. Afterwards application was made to
Judge krebs, and the writ was about to be issued
when Mr.. Leakin learned that Judge Stump was
disposed to take bail in the case, and further pro-
ceedings on the writ were stopped.
State u.s. Joseph League, indicted for keeping
bawdy house. Recognizance forfeited and fine of
$50 and costs imposed.
State Us. Mary Mulligan, indicted for keeping a
disordery house. Recognizance forfeited and a
fine of $50 and costs imposed.
The Court said that in these cases it would i'm
pose double fine on the men and also put them in
jail, if they were brought in.
State as. George ROssmark indicted for selling
liquor on Sunday. Recognizance forfeited.
State Elizabeth Shuster, indicted for selling
liquor Sunday. RecogniZance forfeited, and
fined S20'and costs
Mr.. Whitney stated to the Court, that ne was
ready to take up the motion for new trial in the
case of John Blitner, convicted of receiving stolen
goods.
Mr.. Warrington, Blittners counsel, said he was
not ready to go on, he wanted to examine some
acts of Assembly, bearing upon the reasons laid
down in the motion.
The Court thought be should have done this be-
fore he filed the motion
Mr.. Warrington said he would take it up in a few
DAYS.
The Court postponed it indefinitely, and would
not name day.
Mr.. Whitney said he would call it every morning
until disposed Of
The Court asked what was the next case
Mr.. Whitney replied that the next case was the
motion for a new trial in the case of Catharine
Smith, convicted of keeping disorderly house.
tlled at the last term, in which Mr.. Cowan was
counsel
Mr.. Cowan said that the motion was made last term
only with view of gaining time to raise money
for the fine. He applied to the Court at the time
to make the fine as low possible, and the Court
fixed it at $40. He never intended to argue the
motion, and now withdrew it.
| The Court then imposed fine of $40 and costs
William and Susan Russell, convicted of cruelty
treating their child, James RUSSELL were then
placed at the bar to receive sentence.
Mrs. Russell appeared in Court with baby in
her arms exhibiting stocal Indifference to what
was going on around her, and seemingly not heed
ing anything said by the Judge The husband be-
trayed no emotion during the delivery of the SEN
tence, and after the Judge had concluded he walk
ed back with grim smile on his face apparently
unconcerned.
Judge Stump spoke as follows:
civilian Russell, your wife and you, as an ac-
cessory, have been tried and convicted by Jury of
serious charge, that cruelty to one of your own
children. Our counsel made motion for a new
trial, and the Court after hearing the argument,
oyerrued it.
The Court thinks that you were convicted
upon ample testimony, and that the verdict
was a just one. However unpleasant it may
be to the Court to pass sentence upon wo-
man, convicted of such crime, yet the Court
is bound to do its duty, and to infict proper
punishment. This affair has resulted from-the
Court thinks-reprehensible practice of parties
with children marrying too often. marries
one wife and has children, that wife dies and he
marries another woman with children, then she
bears children to him, and we find three sets of
children in one family; this conglomeration or
Heterogeneous mixture, will invariably produce
dissensOns, and finally lead to quarrels, which de-
stroy all matrimonial felicity. Now a Musselman
by the laws of his country, is allowed to have
plurality of wives, and, consequently, would
have family of mixed children; but we
seldom hear of a discreet Musselman having more
than one wife although the social law in Constanti-
nople allows it. The Court does not say that YOU
had more than one wife at time but refers to tn
to show what evils may come of having many fam
lilies, in this way joined together. From the evil
dence which the court heard it is of opinion, that
the was endeavoring to destroy the child,
witness said that they heard her express herself in
that way, and the Court believes them. 1t has also
been shown that you endeavored to pre- ent and
did make her abstain from such conduct
but afterwards allowed her to go on again
in the same way. You should not have permitted
this; you should have kept her in order and if YOU
| could not have prevented her frcm pursuing this
course, it your duty to have informed the prop
er authorities, and had her conduct put stop to-
The neighbOrs the condition of the child and
noticed the treatment viz or
hands, and very properly interfered-and it is a
pity they did not do it sOOner-and called the at
tenton of the proper officers to the case, as they
had right to do. 1t is the duty of every one
when they see such things this taking place, to
interfere; ought to stand by and silently
notice crime against society like this.
You are both indicted at common law;
which subjects you to fine and imprisonment in the
common jail-there is an act of Assembly, the Court
thinks, which imposes imprisonment in the penten-
tiary, but this indictment is framed at common law
and leaves the punishment in the discretion Of the
Court. 1t is very painful duty for the Court to
pass sentence at all times but it is a duty which it
has to perform, and in this present instance to mee
out such punishment as shall be a warning to Others
For every child in the city it is the duty of the
Court to that it is not tyrannically oppressed
and cruelty treated, and it must discharge this
| duty for the good of society. In all ages step
mothers have shown il-treatment towards the
children by another wife, and although there
many exceptions, when women assume the re-
sponsibiities and duties of wife, yet as rule this
assertion holds good. Upon mature deliberation
cf the subject and weighing all the evidence, the
Court thinks the woman more guilty than yourself,
! and in passing sentence the Court will make but
little distinction, which is somewhat contrary to
the general rule The Court will therefore impose
fine of $50 upon your wife and imprison her
year, and upon you the Court imposes fine of $50
and imprisons you year and one month"
The court at II o'clock adjourned until this morn
| ing at 10 o'clock.
Mr.. Cowan before the adjournment of the Court
| 1oEr H. H.
in the of Miller and Hoffman, charged with
the murder ofHugh D. O'Suvan. Mr.. Cowan states
| that the parties have not complied with the en-
! gagements entered into with him, and that they
| have employed other counsel. The Judge permit
ted Mr.. Cowan, under the circumstances, to with
| draw his
CIRCUIT CoURT FOR BALTIMORE CGTY.-Hon. VIM.
| George Krebs, Judge.
| The following occupied yesterday:
writ de lunatico inquirendo was issued from this
Court at the suit of Charles Howard, (an uncle,)
to ascertain the mental condition of Major John E.
| Howard, and an inquisitOn was taken yesterday,
(the 30th inst, at the office of T. Parkin Scott,
| Esq, before Thomas Creamer, ESQ.,, Sheriff, to
| whom the writ directed.
| The jury summoned was composed of the follow
ing gentlemen: George n Eaton, George P.
! Frick, Samuel Moon, Frederick Fickey, Thomas
! Mackenzie, c. c. JAMESON George X. Quail John
Harrison, Samuel Hindes, William Wilson, Abra-
! ham B. Patterson, Thomas X. Turner.
| After hearing the evidence, the jurors aforesaid
|
said writ named, is of unsound mind and lunatic,
without lucid intervals, that he is not capable of
! the government of himself or the management of
his estate, and that he hath been in such state of
mind for more than one month past, but how he
| became the jurors aforesaid cannot say, unless
| by the visitation of God
| The Jurors also find that the said Major John Z,
Howard is seized and possessed of very large and
valuable estate, real and personal, situate in this
city; but they do not find that he hath, when in
such unsound state of mind, alienated any part
| thereof.
The jurors find that the nearest of kin to the said
Major John L. Howard is his mother Mrs. Corne-
| liza A. Howard, widow, of this city, and that his
nearest heirs at law are his uncles of the fathers
side, enamin G. Howard, James Howard and
Charles Howard, and his aunt of the fathers side,
Mrs. Sophia G. Read widow, all of this city all of
| whom of full age.
| The Court ratified and confirmed the inquisition
and return of the Sheriff, and appointed DR.. Chew
| Van Bibber, Committee of the Person, and Robert
Mickle and William George Read, Committees of
the Estate, of the lunatc.
SUPERIOR CoURT.-Hon. 2. Collins Lee, Judge.
| The following occupied yesterday:
Augustus f. Sewers ct al. James Gliding.
Before reported. On trial Latrobe and SNYDER
| for plaintiffs, Dobbin for defendant
| CoURT COMMON PLEAs.-Hon. William l.. Mar
shall, Judge.
The following business was transacted yester-
| day:
John Hinsley and James Madison Us. Margaret
Hamilton. An appeal from Justice Myers. Judg-
| ment affirmed.
John A. Thompson, Lowe, &C., VIM 4. An
derson. An appeal from Justice Myers. Judgment
| affirmed
Theodore Marsh u.s. John F. McCadden. An ap-
T,,slr afnf Eirpnn nnh