The Ebensburg Alleghanian. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1865-1871, 1866-02-15

Ihe intention was to 60 as soon as they |
got OUT as soon as they could make ar |
raugements.
mere was man, cooper by trade, |
not by name, In the neighborhood, spoken |
OF. This was In the first conv ersation Bu- |
ser talked about those points that might !
be made"
lie then states a conversation with !
Heuser on one Sunday In March
81 asked Houser if he was going to send
some weed, Itobacco] in after he went
out. lie said be could not then he was
hard up. He would have to make a raise
hrst. remarked do you think YOU can
do that ? He said 'oh, yes, there is pile
waiting on me- Said 1, in Cambria p
He did not speak nodded. [ think [
made some remark that let him know that
/ understood.
81 never heard any conversation be-
tween Houser and Buser about Cambria
county, that could understand. Some
times they talked in German. Twice
can remember of them using the word
Cambria 1t was on Sunday each time"
When recalled, he stated that he had
never resided In Cambria county; how he
heard OF the murder, sin the latter part OF
June, probably between the 18th and
10Th" and that he communicated the facts
testified to here, the same day 60 the War
den; aud that "there was no promise of a
pardon or any other inducement held out
to him to testify in this case'' To ques-
tion put by the Court, he said the first he
knew OF being pardone6, '.Getective Hague
told me on the way my pardon was here"
We have thus, because of It's impor-
tance, brought to your recollection the en-
tire testimony of this witness, as we noted
1t down, except only some explanatory and
unlmportant statements, which we, were
not careful to preserve, It is most i'm
portant and material part of the evidence
OF the Commonwealth; since, if true, and
believed, 1t reveals motive and a pur-
! pose,, on the part of the prisoners, to com
nit the crime charged In the indictment.
1t should receive, therefore, the most
careful scrutiny and examination.
| Alter this witness had been called to
the stand, ard sworn to testify in the
cause, it was elected from him, in answer
to question, asked without objection by
the prisoners counsel, that he had ere
Gently got out of the penitentiary y that
he had been tried in Washington county,
and had been HcoIvicted on charge of
burglary; - and that be had been in before
on the same charge, and that he "was
convicted and pardoned on the first charge
| on the ground that he was not gnilty of.
| the offence 1t was here objected by the
| prisoners counsel that he was not a com
petent witness. a pardon by the Cover
nor was then produced and read. 1t was
still objected "that .he pardon produced
| for the last conviction did not remove the
disability occasioned by the first" 1t was
I apparent, however, that the first term of
| imprisonment must have been, ia some
way, terminated and it was our impress
sion, moreover, that the pardon was as we'll
proved as the conviction, If it would be
correct to say that either was properly or
sufficiently proven and that, shewn as it
was, that conviction could only affect his
credt6i2tt.y, and could not be allowed en-
tlrely to exclude his testimony as incom-
petent. He was allowed. therefore, to
testify aud, upon the prayer of the coun-
sci Of the prisoners, bill of exceptions
was sealed. The examination which we
have since given the question, has satisfied
US that we were right. If, however, We
erred In this ruling, we rejoice to Know
that the prisoners are not without a RENE
dy. We now instruct you that he is
competent witness, ard his testimony to
pc regarded by you as legal and proper
evioence, If, IN view of the attitude he
occupies, and of everything urged against
him calculated to affect his credit, you
believe 1t. He stands before you, upon
his own admission, twice convicted of
teioDy; enough the admission, with re-
sspecc to one of the convictions, is qualified
, oy denial of his guilt. His character
for truth and veracity, OF the other hand,
has not beer directly assailed !; and the
counsel of the prisoners declined to sub
ject his statements to the test of cross
examination. You witnessed his manner
of testifying, and will scrutinize carefully
the subject matter of his testimony Itis
argued against it that the confinement In
the penitentiary is separate and Sotit4ry;;"
and that he could not, consequently, have
heard what he has undertaken to detail
and that neither the Warden, nor any
other witness, has been called to corrobo-
rate him, by showing that he could. On
the other hand, you have been reminded
that while the Warden joined in asking
his pardon, no witness has been called to
contradict him, by showing that he could
not and you have been asked to inquire
how he could have invented the story
All we have to say to you, is, he is COM
petent witness do you believe his testi-
mOny!
To shew the alleged conduct of the pris-
oners in Allegheny city, shortly before
and after the murder, and the time aud