Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1861-12-23
THE CITY,


Sentence OF Charles A. Mtnckieys
Judge Bishop this morning delivered
ihs opinion Of the Court on the motion for
= new trial in The case Of Marshal Minek-
ley, found guilty Of perjury. The reasons
set forth we're taken up separately, and
reviewed as follows; .
The Court erred in charging The jury
that they we're 10 decide whether evidence
had been offered in this case, showing that
IN the examination before the justice, suf-
Aoisnt evidence had been offered against
Lynch, before the defendant Ninckley, tes-
1iaod, 30 Is 10 make the defendants testis
moay material as affecting Lynch.
The trial Of Lynch before The Justice was
for breaking into 3 house and stealing.
The Court charged that If The watch was
then taken, it would properly be con-
eludsd that any person found TO have pos.
session Of the watch soon after, vas con-
Osrnsd in the burglary and larceny. It
became material to ascertain IL there Was
evidence before the Justice to this point
Nad4hh Vas left 10 the Jury to decide.
The Court are of opinion that there was no
error in this.
The Court erred in charging the jury
that . burglary having been committed
and property stolen, the fact Of ~defendsnts
testimony tended 10 FIX the crime upon
Green, the property being found in his.
possession, might be used by Lynch as ma
terial in tending to prove Green TO be the
burglar end thief and not Lynch.
Itis for the Court 10 say whether GER
tain things are material, and for the jury
to ssy whether proof Of these thing exists.
The testimony Of Minckley went to fasten
the possession Of the watch on Green and
thus release Lynch BY connecting Green.
with the watch soon after it vas stolen,
which would tend ts create the inference
that Green was The burglar. The Court is
Of opinion that there vas no error on this
point .
No evidence had been offered tending to
prove the everment Of the msteriality Of
the defendants testimony as given before
Fojambe.
Il is not requisite to make more than q
general averment that certain faotsare ma
tsriaL Ecksrt says he Was q witness
against Lynch, and in this trial be says
there Was g burglary and this watch was
taken. FOljambe said that the watch was
identified BY Eckart and MinOklsy on the
examination ss the n taken from Eek
arts house. Can any one say that even if
there we're no other witnesses, the tes-
timony Of these three does not tend to i'm
pHosts 6reen2 Lynch was on trial for
having broken into Eokarts house and
stolen goods. Eekart identified the watch
IS the one stolen stolen Whon2 The pre-
sumption is ct the time Of the burglary.
Minekley traced the watch to Green, he
sWears. Is there nothing to make his tes-
timony massrial2 The court are Of opinion
that no sufficient ground herein exists for
granting q new trial.
The weight of all the evidence in the case
was against the verdict
Certain witnesses sWore to what Minck-
ley said. Green is introduced and mega
lives Minckley's testimony, and if the case
had rested here il Wonld simply have been
oath against oath, end would have fallen to-
the ground. The State then introduces fur
Their testimony, and bring in Hill, who saw
Green in his shop at two O'clock or there
abOuts. Green also sWesrs be saw Minek-
ley ten or fifteen minutes before the arrest
at the Wedds1 House corner. A German
and his wife swear that il was not on the
day Of the arrest, but on Friday or satur-
day that they law Minokley ct the slaugh-
tsr-bouss. The testimony Of all these Wit
nsssss, and the distance Of the log from the
the shop would show if the witnesses are
uneonzadicted, that Green could not have
been over the river ct the time alleged, and
that Mineklsy did not follow him IS he
stated. The testimony Of the State Is
clearly against MiRckley. Other wit
nessss, Smith, Matthew I, Lsidyand Moore,
testify 10 seeing Green over the river the
day before his arrest and stil1 others swear
that on the day Of the arrest they saw
Minsklsy coming up Vineyard street at
the time he says he vas following Green.
It il claimed by the State that Mineklsy
had sufficient facilities for getting up such
testimony as be desired The defendant
claims that the testimony is reliable and
uncOntradieted. The whole court has had
the matter before it but I do not hsaitats to
cay If the matter had been left to me II
should have been in doubt whether to con-
Wet or SCOUT from the testimony The
jury, however have had the whole matter
before Them, and I cannot say that they
have been governed by any excitement OF
prejudice. Daring this term they have
almost deserved the name Of the Defend
ants Jury and I cannot feel wiling : say
that they have in this case rendered sn
outrageous verdict. 1If7 p
The Court then. ia Of opinion thatit viii
not be justified in granting the motion for
Q nsE trial
Judgs Bishop, before proceeding to pass
sentence, asked the prisonerifh he had any
thing TO say. Minckley stated that since
he had been in jail the witness Lynch had
been to him and had stated that he had
sworn falsely, and that he Eishsdto r~etraet
He referred to any detectives in the city TO
say whether the course that he pursued in
watching and felloWing the men would not
have been the one that they would hare
taken. To be sure he had 3 force at his