The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-02-24
The Norwalk Bar X Case.
Before United States Commissioner X. G. Whit

OOmmW8l0DoF n. u.
SUMMING UP OF coUNsEL-PoINrs OF LAW.
The evidence In the case Of the United States W. James
s. williams, the charge Of feonously taking letter
from the New York Post Office having been concluded ON
Wednesday last the time yesterday was occupied by the
summing up Of COUNSEL and the decision Of the Cois-
sioner.
Mr.. Ridgeway for the defence, raised the following
points-That mere presumption Of guilt supported by
doubtful testimony not sufficient hold the defendant
that evidence of identity this case was most doubtful
because the same witnesses had before another court
identified another individual positively and without hed
taop and, therefore, they must have perured thsm-
other and their evidence viii not hold good in either he
same may be said Of the evidence OF identity Of hand
wrng- was nearly the same n both cases. that there
charger, or Offering to lend money, or 70 buy
persons out, or having sums deposited IN az
isrtnt banks under the names Of Braon. and
Simpson, to prevent his vifes reaching them BY an
action for separate maintenance In hts having won
there moneys at playing policy that tho custom o Post
window ledge the explanation OF the mystery Of
this case that the witnesses TO tho identity could not be
misled by strong resemblance between the two WI
with sandy hair gnt blue eyes, long whskers and nar.
row chest; while James s. williams Is an American With
broad shoulders; and that even the defendant had
committed the forgery at Adams Express Office th was
office.
Mr. Busteed made the following points Of hw-Tbat q
another person had been examined and held 10 bail on
this same charge before another commissioner the pre-
cent commissioner has Jurisdiction. That this coms
sioner cannot review the proceedings Of another comms
foner both having only ordinate jurisdiction, and the
practice IN commissioners courts corresponding that
in State courts. That 10 constitute this offence such
taking must be proven would amount larceny OF per-
scpal property That, IN this there no evidence
that the accused unlawiuy took the In question: or
any other that the United Sates bound prove posi-
lively that the defendant took the letter. gu cannot
vAvu N~sv~&~
sumptons OF law In favor Of innocence must be rebuaed
BY direct proofs Of guilt n
Mr.. Dwight in his summing up, traced the los of Tie
letter. ~ taking bon the Post u1ce, is presence e The
express Office, where the holder Of sad that Tho bank
would Understand" the change from threen 70 two"
months This u clearly evidence ~ 70 the seioaious
taking or the letter for bad the note been picked up i
tbe street the holder would have had kno gledge
what the bank knew. The two W,llamses dis-
similar utthat might be taken for the other To
witnesses were mistaken TO the identity Of the former
Williams but were consccntously careful and truthful
about the present Identification Just before the crime
was committed Williams turned out OF hn house BY
bis landlord, was liDg the situation OF carver In small
saloons at 20 per week salary, and dabbng Ia poll
cies-the aat ree0rt Of men OF small means. that
Immediately after the crime Williams was husn:
went to buy out bis former employers purchased
deposited large sums Of money, nearly corresponding "a
that OF the note told different stories about where be re-
ceved the money. Wilisms was IN the habit Of taking
from the Post office letters not directed himself The
handwriting OF the letter and note very plainly proven
to be his Upon this circumsanti evidence prosecu
ton rests its case.
The Commissioner overruled all the points submitted by
Mr. Buseed, except "that the taking must amount 10
ed and the decision Of the Commissioner given eleven
O'Clock this morning.