Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1861-12-18


Trial Of City aIaFshal q A. Rilneklsy.
The arguments Of Counsel having closed q
foK yesterday forenoon, Judge BishOp Delivers
his charge TO the Jury. II was clear and impair
tial throughout, and was listened 10 with htton
ton by the large audience present. We regret
not being able 10 give q full report, but the fol
( lowing Is 4 portion Of the more important part
GENTLEMEN or rHE JuHY: The time has come
In this important case when you and 1 have our
duty 70 perform. IL will be my duty 70 slate %
you the rule which shall govern you In this case.
and it Is yours 20 take the facts under the rule
and apply them TO the case. As IL will be the
last case Ia which l shall preside In this Court,
and the last OF your present term ~ jurOrs
neither OF us viii wish 10 do otherwise than
that which i warranted by the facts and the ey-
idence. The Judge then stated briefly the cir.
cumstances Of the case and also recited the detnl.
lion Of the crime Of perjury rs laid down In the
statutes Of Ohio. In regard to the materially Of
the evidence of the defendant on the ami
ton OF Lynch, which could be material only ~
il affected the interest Of one Of the parties IN the
case, the Court said: Il Is laid down ~ good an
thofity that the degree Of materially Of tcs1-
mOny Is ofnO consequence. II II tend 70 prove
the matter In hand Il Is enough, though Il be
but eircumstantial Was there then in defend
ants testimony anything which could affect the
case In which Il was given'
II is incumbent on the State 10 show this. II
the testimony Of defendant had been given In a
case against Grseni IL would De sell apparent
that the testimony was material, as Il would have
tended to show that Green the burg.
larry and took the watch.
the defendants counsel say that this mateTi.
Rlity Il not apparent In the case Of Lynch In
Let us examine what the charge against Lynch
was. IL was burglary. The tendency of defend
ants testimony was 10 show that Green had pos
session Of this watch under circumstances of sus
nfnfnu AZ n tina nnf 1nnu nfnr n was ENOlam and
the burglary committed.
This is the only view in which the defendants
testimony could be material, Now so much only
Is material as tends 20 show this-sOme portions
of Il taken alone would not tend 10 that end,
but taken with other parts may 30 tend II 20
they are material. And / leave IL to the Jury 10
say how far each part, separately, or taken to
gether. tends 20 show some one other than Lynch
as guilty Of the burglary,
The going 10 the log by two men one a colored,
is Of no consequence, only as connected with the
discovery Of the watch there by defendant I'm
mediately afterwards So as 20 the log and the
watching BY defendant. AMI in order 70 make
any part Of the testimony Of Defendant materi
al il must have tended 10 show, either alone or
In connection with other testimony, that some
other person than Lynch had possession Of that
watch soon amer the burglary which Lynch was
charged with committing.
If = burglary Ia committed and property Is az
the same time stolen, q person who was found
with the property IN his possession under suspi-
glar, and II was competent for Lynch to show
that state Of facts In order 10 exculpate himself,
and showing that Green was SO situated asto the
burglary in CUSTOM, would tend 20 show some
other one than himself guilty, II there was no
proof that Lynch wa connected with Green
In this light II would be material 90 show these
circumstances In defense Of Lynch, a. tending 70
show that the burglar and thief was Green, and
not Lynch. But the defendant says; LIST, There Is
no s~uficient allegation IN the indictment, showing
the testimony was material. I'd Nor does II appear
from the testimony given In this case that IL had
become material in the case Of Lynch at the
time Il was given.
So far as the allegations In the indictment are
concerned, ! have come 20 the conclusion TO hold
that for the purposes 0 this trial the Indictment
is sufficient. II insufficient, the defendant, II
becomes necessary, has ample remedy hereafter.
As 10 the other point, that II does not appear
that IN the case against Lynch at the time the
defendant gave his testimony, such testimony
was material.
l find It laid down as settled law that "when
perjury is assigned In the evidence given in the
cause it will be necessary not only TO produce
the record but TO give evidence of so much Of the
state of the cause At the precise posture Of the
prisoner testifying as will show the materiality
of his testimony. The indictment does NOT ne
c~essarily state how II became material, but only
charges generally that II was So" Greenleafs
evidence, SEQ. 1sT.
From this authority Il appears necessary that
the State should show that at the time the defen-
dant testified that the position Of the case against
. nAA u " uG AAClAEA UI lis NENNANAUuIa I
have already stated how Il might be affected by
Il, that Is by showing, or tending 70 show, some
other person was the burglar, &c. Now II moth
ing had been proved on the part Of the State
when defendant testified, showing that a burg.
larry had been committed, and connected with
the watch In question, and casting some imputa-
ton Ia connection with u upon Lynch, then Il
could not have been said that the testimony OF
defendant WRs material, rs It could net affect the
case.
II Is q question entirely for the Jury whether
there Is any testimony IN this case stating how
the Gaze stood against Lynch when the defend
ant testified. Ii there Is none then there IL moth
ing to show the materially of the defendants
testimony 50 as TO affect Lynch, the defend
ant must be acquitted.
The prosecution claim there is such testimony
that Il had been produced in evidence before
the Justice, and testimony given In connection
with, &C.
Bat 1t Is sOlslys question for the jury, and
.
Give the case a careful consideration. Find
first.
Was there a judicial investigation, or CON.
plant, as stated In the Indictment Was the dc
PENDANT sworn in the case7 Did he testify In the
casef Was his testimony material under the rule
already laid down. And II 20, was his testimony
willfully scorruptly and knowingly false, accord
ing 70 the rule / have before laid down. lfsO,
render your verdict OF guilty rs you would II
the most humble individual was on trial; II not,
acquit him, for the law seeks no sacrifice; wants
not 70 Wreak vengeance on any, out simply pun
ish the guilty when legally proven to be such.
At eleven o'clock the jury retired, and at
noon the Court took q recess until 2 o'clock.
A considerable number Of persons, however,
remained in the Court room and on the out
side until re-opening Of Court, and ct IN
o'clock, the hour at which the jury CAM in,
there was a large crowd present.
Tho foreman of the jury gave in his YER
dict "Gpiity' in the midst of an anxious ST.
lence, which was only broken by whispers
of commiseration for the unfortunate man.
The counsel for Defendant made a motion
in arrest Of judgment, which is for hearing
Of 2 o'clock this afternoon. The ground for
the argument will undoubtedly be the in
suGiciency of the indictment.
Ca Council.
TUESDAY RVEEIEa, Dec. II.
- a Il uH-A.. u1nTH