Delaware State journal and statesman. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1855-1870, 1861-03-22

In tue present state of the law this curiou
anomaly exists, that in the very same slate Q
facts, it depends upon whether the proceeding
is civil or criminal whether the mouth of til
accused person is closed or not. and his wife
walking home at night, are met by d and hi
wife, when b knocks A down. indicts B fol
the assault, and this being n criminal proceed
ing, aud bis wife give their evidence upon oath
while neither D nor bis wife eau be examined a
all. But suppose that, instead Of indicting d
A had brought an action against him, the whole
case is changed Now aud b, aud their re-
spective wives, eau all be examined and cross
examined Can there DO doubt which case is
most conducive TO the calculation o. the truth!
and can IA grosser Rbsurdity be conceived than
that the same court should adopt modes of PRO
cednre so inconsistent in an inquiry into the
same faclP, before the same Judge aud Jury, and
practically between the same parties
case occurred last summer which excited
great interest, and which forcibly illustrates the
evil we complain of.
Clergyman by the name of Hatch was in
dictel for o gross offence alleged to have been
committed upon child of tender years, who had
been intrustnd to his care as pupil. The charge
rested almost solely on the evidence of the child,
a girl of The name of Eugenia Plummer. Neither
Hatch moi his wife could be examined, and as
theirs wnt the only testimony by which, from
buttCd Hatch was convicted. Under the cir
cumstance], it was hardly possible that the Jury
could cone to any other conclusion. A few
weeks elapsed and Eugenia Pummer was placed
at the same bar, charged with perjury. Then
the tables were turned. Hatch and his wife
was examined; the child's mouth was closed
The Jury convicted Eugenia Plummer of per-
jury. On the evidence before the Jury no other
result could reasonably be expected Both the
I,srf Il sI.ns.. .l..a.. .-aI.I
intelligence Both were assisted in their de-
liberalions by Judges of the highest character
and the greatest experience aud ability, yet one
Jury or the o,her convicted an innocent person.
If Pummer was guilty, Hatch was nnooent; if
Hatch was guilty, PlumEer was herself the
double violin of his brutality and his perjury.
We express no opinion whatever as to which
Jury right, but 1t is manifest that both could
not be, II must, we think, be clear to every
one that the only way in which case Of this |
kind could be satisfactorily tried must be by
confronting and examining both the parties. =
To attempt to try such issues separately is like |
trying to cut knot with the two disunted |
halves of pair OF scissors
If, upon one trial, both could have been OK. |
amined, tile inquiry would very possibly have |
terminated in the aoquttal of both. In other
words, the Jury might have found the evidence
of both so unsatisfactory that they could not
found any decision upon it. Such result Ger.
taiuly, would not have boon desirable, vet il
would have been far less Objectionable than what
has actually taken place. The conviction of
Eugenia Plummer for perjury has operated as a
virtual acquittal of Hatch. But every one must
feel that that acquittal having been obtained
When the mouth of tho only material witness
against him was closed is far less satisfactory
han it would have been if it had resulted from
he decision Of Jury who had heard the evil
lencC of Plummer.-B iaehwooa's MagGsine.