Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1865-02-27

CHARGE OF BEING THE PERpRTRAToP oV
THE CRIME BEFoRR JUSTICE KINsEY-HE is
COMMITTED TO JAIL FOR COURT.
On Saturday evening" the examination of
John Z. Lusby, who it will be reeoIlected. was
rearTested by officers Allen and Wise, on the
charge OF being the perpetraior Of the horrible
outrage upon the person Of little Octayie Ros-
seau, in November last, which resulted in her
death. was concluded before Justice Kinsey-
j. II. Johnson Appearing for the prosecution,
and Messrs. j. H Bradley, jr and W. Y Fen
dali for the defense. At the previous hearings
of the case on Wednesday and Thursday, the
prosecution having given in their testimony on
saturday, the evidence for the defense was
called, when
Mrs Elisabeth Rossedu was sworn, and testi-
fed that her daughter (the deceased) left the
house about five o'clock, on the day OF the
occurrence, to go 10 her fathers shop, which
was just around the corner, ION Il street, near
Delaware ayenue.1 Witness did not her
again until about nine o'clock, when she came
home.
Charles Watkins Ccolored) sworn.-Witness
was employed IN working on the columns for
the Capitol, which are carried up North Capi-
toi street. On the day of the occurrence he was
working near MIR. Donaldson's restaurant, and
worked until past six O'Clock. As near as be
could fix the time, between four and five O'Clock
he saw little girl playing near MT Donald
sons restaurant and when he stopped work he
left her playing on the hill near by. Witness
did not know who she was On the same
evening witness saw q man come along by Mr..
Donaldson's, where he stopped moment, and
he then went to the corner, b and North Cap
manned until they stopped work. This man
wore a soldiers overcoat dark pantaloons and
dark brswn SLOUGH hat.
ton, but witness could not say that he was the
man.
roborated the testimony Of the preceding wit
ness as to the child playing on the bank and
the man setting on the stone, who he described
as wearing soldiers overcoat, dark pants
and slouch hat and was shaved clean.
Euqene Barthdn sworn.-Witness about ten
minutes before on,last Thanksgiving day met
the prisoner al the corner OF lth ST eet and the
avenue, near Squire MCKenna's. He (Lusbyl
was going down ith street toward the Metho-
Iusby had on a blue oyereoat, dark pants and
glazed fiat cap and beard on his face ABOUT
half an inch long. but no mustache witness
Cross-examined Witness has known the
prisoner nearly all his life He was certain
that it was about ten minutes 10 because ne
lett his home at twenty minutes to 5 10 see MS
wife's sister at 45 minutes past ); witness did
not know when he started where he would
find his " ,fes sister but he found where she
had stopped but did not know ON what street
the house was or who kept 1t; he could, now
ever, go to 1t
the boiler shop AT the Navy Yard with Lusby,
and IecolIects that on last Thanksgiving day
he saw Lusby on g street south, aRd 6th street
east, going towards his home little before
dark Lusby was staggering drunk et the
time and was on the opposite side OF the street
from witness. He had on q blue overcoat and
glazed cap but cou Id not tell whether he had
beard or not. Lusby wore a beard in the
Yard.
The defense here offered 10 send for witness
to testify to the condition OF Mrs. Lusby' s
health, but the Justice declined TO wait, and
they stated that they had closed their case with
the exception OF the report OF the analysis
made by chemists Of the stains found on the
prisoners clothing. which they had given no
tice to prosecution to produce, but they had
failed to do so, and they now asked and offered
to prove such report. As the prosecution had
neglected to produce the original, they de-
dad 81 Srht 10 tnrF dupn N a ha
evidence.
The prosecution contended that the paper
had nothing to do with this case, and stated that
ne notice TO produce it had been served on
Justice Kinsey said he had no objection to
hearing the paper read, and would give 1t the
weight ne thought it was worth.
The abstract OF the report of DR. Erni OF the
analysis was read from the Star OF December
10Th, and James Croggon testified that in the
main IL was literal copy.
The argument was commenced at a quarter
past six, and Mr.. Johnson, for the prosec ution
opened in the beginning, describing the enor-
nifty of the crime rape and murder. He re-
viewed the evidence, and contended that those
portions of the evidence offered OF tbs confess
sion of the prisoner as to his having mania
and to the conversation Dr. Ford had with the
deceased, which had been ruled out, pointed
unerringly 10 the prisoner as the perpetratol
OF the crime, and he was satisfied that the
Court would allow this evidence to go to the
jury. Nevertheless, without this eviden ce
there was enough 10 warrant the prisoner be-
ing remanded. He argued that the fact of Mr.
Wood not being admitted at once, when he
went TO the house to arrest the prisoner was
against him. Even the testimony of the two
Colored men for the defense was in favor Of the
prosecution, for they described, with the ex
ception of the hat the dress worn by the pris
oDer, and in the twilight 1t was easy to mis-
take a fiat cap for q black SLOUGH hat. The
other witnesses for the defense contradi cteC
themselves.
Mr.. Fendall for the defense followed, and BIZ
reviewed the circumstances connected with
the case. The prisoner was young man Of
family and has been suspected and arrested
Tor the ofiense and after an examination before
one OF the highest law officers in the country
was honorably discharged. He now asked al
whose instance ne was arrested-on a warrant
issued at the instance OF Mr.. Allen. The same
witnesses had testified on this examination and
the question was whether he was to be held on
the same evidence.
ny, that of Mr. Alexander, who heard some
statements from the prisoner while in jail
which IL was sought TO construe into q comics
sion Ihis witness was in jail on charge OF
ielony and discharged on the condition Of his
turning states evidence but when he went be
fore the grand jury they refused to belle We him
and the case was dismissed against The other
parties. His object was gaiD-the nnestion
with him is whether he will get the reward
The prosecution was upon the suspicion of tba
officers. He denied that Lusby was the ma n
who committed the deed, and asserted that the
additional witness, Alexander was not emit.
tied under the circumstances to belief; and in
conclusion be argued that the duty of the JUS
uce under the circumstances was to dismiss
Mr. Bradley followed MIR. Fendall. 1t was
the duty OF the magistrate TO hear the evidence
and determine whether the evidence pointed
TO the prisoner or not. He contended that the
evidence did not point unerringly TO the prs.
oner. As to the prisoners being seen in the vi
cinity OF the occurrence, IL he showed that the
prisoner was not in the neighborhood after fl we
O'CLOCK ne should demand the prisoners dis
charge, and he proceeded to analyzs the evil
dence for the prosecution and commended that
ne had proved that the prisoner was not in the
neighborhood. The person who committed the
deed was not the prisoner, but the man left on
the stone after six o'clock.
mr.. Johnson stated that the avowed object
OF the defence was TO prove an abb, but they
n Ho Jailed, and as the hour was growing late
AJ2Ol he VHOnln ha