Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1861-12-19

why should the Dslsnee, n they had, conf
denos in the testimony Of three Witnesses,
introduce a fourth to prove che Same thing.
Such evidence was merely cumulative, and
proved nothing. The Defence had brought
forth more witnesses, 10 be sure, but q case
was not to be decided by the number Of wit
nosses, but circumstances would influence
the jury a. to the degree Of credit to which
they we're to bs entitled. The formal i'm
parchment Of q witness Is not necessary.
These facts sworn TO by them took place
long since, and the minutsness with which
trivial circumstances are narrated looks
suspicious.
Mr.. slade referred to the testimony of
Smith, Eddy and Clark, bringing arguments
to bear against their testimony similar to
those offered in the trial Of the case. He
referred also TO several witnesses who
had been subP@naed not being called upon
the stand, and said that all there might
have influenced the jury in their verdict.
He also referred to the ahcrtness of the
time between the hour when Green was
seen by Hill in his shop and by Smith on
the Railroad coming lback from the fats,
and by Schroeder on Ontario street. All
these things would have great weight with
q jury.
Lynch swOre that he was to be set free
on the morning after the arrest.
It is claimed that there Is no testimony
to show that Minckley's testimony before
Foljambe is material to the case in hearing.
It was shown by Foljambe that Eckart ap-
peared as q witness and produced the watch
a. evidence. Evidence against whom p
Against Lynch Of course. Is was also iden-
tilted as the watch stolen from him.
Mr.. Williamson, on the part of the State,
said 1t became material to ascertain
whether the watch was in possession of one
person or another person. Eckart was call
ed upon TO identify the watch as the one
taken from his house. The watch lie ma
terial only as an item of evidence, and lie
identified as the one stolen. It was sought
to be proved that the watch being in the
possession of Green could not have been
taken by Lynch. Thus it is shown that
the watch became material as evidence with
reference to the burglary.
The Court, I imagine, did its duty in say
what was material, and IN leaving it 10
the jury tOsay what had been proven.
Mr.. Backus, for the defence, said that the
defendant had no knowledge of any pro-
ceedings against him until the sheriff wait
ID upon him, and that he has been CON-
to look up his attorneys in the mid
die of a term when they were in the midst
Of pressing business, 80 that not sufficient
lime had been given to the preparation of
The case. he firmly believed thst with sufi-
time he should be enabled to clear
The defendant, and should not an opportu-
nifty be given in a case so important as this?
Unless the testimony given Of the exami-
nation was material before Minckley gave
his evidence, it could not become material
from any evidence he might give. There
is no evidence to show that the watch was
at the time of the burglary. The
Court charged the jury that il tbere was evil
before them to show that there was
evidence before the justice that that watch
taken at the time of the commission of
The burglary, the defendant must be acquit-
ted. How have they discharged their duty?
We ask for a new trial before o jury that
will be governed by the charge of the Court
and by the law and the evidence. Are we
too much?
At the conclusion of Mr.. Backus' argu-
ment, the points of which we have given
very imperfectly, the Court adjourned till
10 o'clock this morning. The railing of the
Court will be given on Friday, probably.