The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-05-10
THE HAYEs-cHARLlck MIDDLE.
Conclusion or the Trial-verdict for thu
c,l.e,,a., Defendant.

| COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Before Judge Brady.
MAY 0-WIlidm ~ Hayes Oliver CA0rIck. Tho
trial OF this remarkable resumed this morning.
| in the presence Of large number Of spectators.
Thomas Dunlap, Deputy Sheriff. deposed that he was
present Jefferson Market Police Court when Hayes
brought there; have known Oliver Charick for many
years; know him prior to 1851 did not Mr. Charick
there that evening: left the court d company
with Judge Quackenbush, aud up to that time saw
nothing Of Mr.. Charick
Mr. Hall--wo rest here, your Honor, unless we are
permitted to show why Mr. r G. Maloncy is not here
He Ia quito i'll aud could not be present
Mr.. Smith-We will call DR.. Weltjc to the stand
Mr. Haiti object the plaintiff having closed his
and no fresh testimony having been introduced by
Mr. Smiti-It for the purpose of rcbutng tho evil
dence Of the defendant
Judge Brady-The objection Is overruled.
Christopher wcllje, NJ. D., deposcd that ho was &C.
quainted with the plaintiff and defendant Ihave known
Mr.. Charlick for eight or nine years
Q. Did you him on the evening of the I'd Of No
vemberS. ettn a
Mr. Ha-That matter has been all gone through with.
Mr.. Smith, want to show that Mr. Charlick has
falsely in saying that he not present when the
| police arrested my client
q Judge Brady-I will not permit you to open the
afresh II would be doing injustice to the other side
Mr. Smtk-If Oliver Chafick has sworn fatty that he
entitled o show that be VAST Can not Contradict his
~ ss:s. e s % s:.ss s
present. think he has proven IL.
Mr. Smith-Do understand your Honor to say that he
Judge Brady-I think he has but that is matter for
Mr. Smth-Your Honor will please note our exception
will ask few other questions even II they
ruled 80 'g tg-
O. Did You see two persons at Mr. Hayes place Of
bus,po o0 thQ Of al
who represented themselves as oiiicersS
Mr. Hall-we object objection sustaned.)
Dr. Ingrnham 10 the stand. Hts
Judge Brady What do you intend to prove by this
Mr.. Smith, want to prove that he was present and
saw Oliver Charck there, and that the policemen did
not show their warrant exhibit their shields
Judge Brady--You may show that the policemen did
not show their exhibit their shields, because
there i some doubt upon THIS point, nut you cannot
Mr.. smits--weIi wewill examine the witness subject
Marvin Ingraham deposed that he a clerk in the
Sub. Treasury department; ] am acquainted with Mr.
Mace Of business ON The I'd Of November 1901 did not
see any persons exhibit any shield or badge o: Office
they inquired for Dr. Ingraham, my father and said
they had a warrant for him, but did not show any.
DR. weltjc recalled On the evening OF the 2d Of No
vcmber 1861 was present al Mr. Hayes place Of bust
ness; two men came in who Represented themselves as
officers they showed no shields, neither did they exhibit
Mr. Smh-That is our case
Mr. Hali-We have more testimony to o1cr.
THE SUMMING UP.
In summing up the for the defence, Mr.. Hall
sumcd that the for the plaintiff proven to
the satisfaction Of tbs jury Mr. Charllck had clearly
ma ne Was orrc as ,ae hv I'M .,
their responsibility because of the interference OF
the plaintiff in preventing the arrest Of Dr. Ingraham.
The idea that public place Of business q "man's
castle absurd, and the police fully justified In
taking the they did the capture Of
| the persons mentioned In the warrant In fact IL
was the duty of the plaintiff TO assist the officers In
their efforts TO arrest DR.. lngraham, rather than
10 offer any obstacle TO their will The plaintiff was
wrongdoer and rendered himself liable arrest and IL
would be the height of folly to reward him for his obst
| nncy Mr. Hayes and the witnesses for the plaintiff
| were mistaken about Mr. Charlick being present in
Spruce street just they about his being present
on the bench with Justice QuacEcnbush They evidently
mstook Mr. =. G. Maloney for the defendant and with
out intending to commit perjury had falsely The
defendant who knew best about the affair that he
was not there and the jury could not find verdict for
| the plaintiff without stamping Mr. Charck as common
pcsnrer ,, r m,oirc m ,o c..o 70. ,,,o ,,,,,,,,r
the ground that he had made out clear and unms
taxable Of identity Five witnesses, including the
plaintiff himself haa sT1 h positively cr that mr. chark
and the jury could not help believing them The defen,
dant a wealthy man. drank rich wines and drove bis
CARRIAGE but that was no reason why he should be al
lowed to trampe upon tho rights Of OF his fellow
citizens For four years the defence had STAYED OF the
the plaintiff had lost his principal wincss-Dr Tngra
| bam-who died some months ago. The arrest, and
free American citizen, and the Jury called upon
render such verdict as would not only be punishment
Il the defendant but warning 10 all respessers tho
future.
JUDGE BRADy's CHARGE.
| In charging the jury the Judge remarked that he
deemed 1t his duty 10 say that because the defendant
was wealthy and drove about in bis carriage was
the less entitled 10 their consideration The for the
defence not TO be prcjudccd because OF the riches Of
the defendant or his ability TO employ class lawyers.
The action was brought against Mr. Charlick for his
alleged participation In the arrest and Incarceration OF
the plaintiff and he could only be held responsible for
what did himself apd not for any outrage inflicted by
others. Mr. Charck swears that no had nothing
whatever 10 do with the arrest Of the plsintiH
and did not know anything about u until the
next day If you believe his statement DO true why
that Is the end Of the case IT. the other hand, you
believe that the defendant has falsely, and that
the evidence Of Hayes Davis and Sutherland is correct
then your verdict will BIO for the plaintiff The pre-
sents some remarkable features and for conflict OF
timony exceeds anything Of the kind that expert.
enced. II is for the jury to determine who is most
worthy Of belief, and In arriving al n conclusion II is
proper for you 10 consider the relations that tho wit.
ncsscs on each side bear TO The cohtestng parties