Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-02-07
THE MOUNT HOPE CONSPIRACY CASE
Reported for the Baltimore Daily Commercial
.rn,rsnN,rnn.s Inhr,,n 6 1SsE

Reported for the Baltimore Daily Commerciall
TowsoNTowN. February g. 1866.
Circuit Court for Baltimore Co,,nty-Hon. D. c. H.
Emory. Judge; John L. Ensor, Esq, States Attor
ney.
To-day being the day set for the trial of the case of
the State vs. DR.. William II. Stokes and Mary Blen-
kins0p known as the Mount Hone case at an early
hour court room began TO fill with the witnesses in
said case, Of whom there are over one hundred.
The counsel for the prosecution are John l; Ensor
an9 AtGfneg ana f f deanea ear1
William ?. Preston, Richard j. Cuttings, Eugene
Cummiskey and VIM. Sehiey; The following is a
copy of demand of q full and particular statement
Of the acts proposed to be given in evidence by the
State III said cause:
In the case Of the State Of MARYLAND vs. William
II. Stokes and Mary Blenkinsop. In the Circuit
Court for Bal more county Indictment for conspi-
racy. To John T. Easor ESQ. the States Attorney
The defendants in the above case. under and in
accordance with the S4th section of Article 30 OF the
Code of Public General Law. hereby make applica-
ton to you, in your official capacity for statement
of the particular false preences intended to be relied
on at the trial of said ease in proof of the alleged
ia pretences set forth in said indictments and also,
the names Of the witnesses. by whose evidence you
expect to prove the same. Respectfully
Z. J. GRIMES,
January 10th, 1866 Attorneys for defendants.
Service is admitted, January %, 1885, =,
States Attorney for Baltimore county.
law.
Mr.. Schey then addressed the court in support of
the demand set forth in said papers. alleging that it
was right under the common law and under the
This application was resisted by Mr.. Ensor, and
Mr.. Rogers. who stated thai he could not now give
all the particulars Of he evidence which he relied
in support of the allegations set forth in the ndict-
ment.
Mr., Radcliffe said they. the counsel for the prose-
cution, would at any time give information to the
counsel on the other side ii application were made
TO them privately.
Mr.. 6cEley remarked that the case would he tried
in any event. but he thought it just and right that
the demand should be complied with.
Mr. hatcltfe said the counsel for the defence had
no right to make the demand, and that the matter
was settled by the demurrer when it was overruled
and not settled by the demurrer it had been
settled by the law for one hundred years.
Ills Honor said there was no matter before the
court, the counsel tor the defence had made the de-
mand, and the counsel for the prosecution I'd de-
cned to give the information and that the question
would properly be raised during the progress of the
case before the jury.
Mr.. Preston made an elaborate and able argument
before the court this point. and referred to the
case of the Queen VS.. O'Connell in which case he
said all the facts relied upon by the prosecution were
fully set forth in the ind ctment which was So heavy
in consequence of all of said facts being set forth in
the indictment that the counsel would not lift it, He
said that Lord Denman said in th't that the in
dctmen if 1t did not set forth all the facts relied on
by the prosecution, would he fraud, helusion and
snare, and so was the indictment in this case.
His Honor remarked that the counsel for the de-
fence had made the demand, and the counsel for the
prosecution had declined to furnish the partcu airs
demanded it could be matter for the court to de-
termne hereafter whether evidence tending to prove
the facts for which demand of the particulars had
been made, was admissible
Mr.. Schley then said that as the case was mingled
Of law and fact, and the trial of the case be-
fore jury might consume months and entail great
expense the county. The defendants would eX-
ercise their undoubt right and would try the case
before his Honor. lie said that he did not know a
single member of the jury, but that it had always
been his opinion that case of mingled law and fact
should be tried before the Court and that he regretted
Duttlnp this work ms Honor end that dpfer-
to his Honors known wishes. he hal consulted
his colleagues upon this point and they had come to
the conclusion to try it before the Court. That he
knew his Honor would find the defendants guilty il
the facts warranted it, and would aequit the parties
if there not evidence enough tn sustain the in
dictment. His Honor replied that he woud have
preferred TO have had the tried before the jury
which he thought the proper tribunal to try disputed
cases OF facts yet as the counsel for the defence had
elected to try the before him, he would endeavoI
to do his duty in the premises fairly and impartiay
Mr.. Rogers then began the opening statement for
the prosecution ami said that the trial of the cause
before his honor had imposed upon him (the judge
very oneloug and difficult duty, involving charges
against individuals and against ancient and
cradle church. The false pretenceS, he said were
contained in the reports Of the Mount Hope lnStitu-
tiou two Of which he said came within the time pres
crbed by law both coming within the year. one be-
ing circulated a year from the finding of the ndict-
meut. and the other being printed within the year
He said the conspiracy had continued for twenty
years, and they would prove acts tending to show the
conspiracy during that time Mr.. Rogers then read
from the report of the Institution of the 18th of Fe
bruary 1863, showing the condition OF the Hospital
and the number eliminates confined, and commented
upon it.
Mr.. Schley here interrupted the counsel, and said
he had no right to comment upon the facts but only
to state the facts on which he intended to rely
Mr.. Rogers said he would make his statement in
his own way, and cOntended that he had right 10
comment upon the facls.
The Judge said he wasnot very familiar with crimi
nal practice but the rule of civil practice was for the
counsel III his opening statement simply to state the
facts which he intended to rely and the object OF
tho evidence he offered, and he should rule in
this case, unless contrary practice shown to
exist in criminal cases.
| MIR. Rogers then resumed the reading of the re-
| port, and when he had concluded his extracts from
it, he said he should offer 1t in evidence also, the
report of 1864 from which he also read extracts very
complimentary to the Sisters of Charity. and said he
should offer that in evidence In this report it i:
also stated that chronic cases comprise more than
! nine-tenrns OF the inmates Of the institution.
Mr.. Rogers also read froI. te Seventeenth Annual
Report of the Institution for the year 1856 also from
the Twelfth Annual Report TOR the year lS5i; also
from the Fifteenth Report for the, year 1857 also
from the Fifth Annual Report for the year 1917 in
which il is claimed that the amount ofcures is larger
than those p any other of the institutions which
there mentioned ana lnat iks per centage Of death;
is less.
Mr.. Rogers said the counsel FOR the prosecution
would produce witnesses who would testify that they
had been shut up in their rooms for three months al
time. and deprived of all means of amusement and
/ occupation. lie then read from the First Annual
Report u the Institution for the year 1873 page -
where it IS stated Jhat tha whole treatment of the
insane may be summed qpln the woiu5 Il Jacobl-in
two word. kindness and employment. He also read
from the Fourth Annual Report for the year 1876
In all ct these rep IT'S it is claimed that the SIS
Of Charity peculiar > adapted 20 take charge Of
the insane, by OF their education refinement
pleasant and agreeable manners, and the devotion
which hey give themselves up to the task OF liking
care of the insane and the pure and Ofy ives by
which they are aetuated. In all of these reports
which were made by Dr. Stokes it is claimed that in
Mount Hope Institution the moral treatment Of the
insane. as it i5 called, has superseded the old an,
barsber 01es OF treatments fem erly practced Mr.
Rogers stated that evidence offered Js thz p-o.ecu-
ton would prove that these statements made il the
reports of the institution with regard TO the treat
cnt of the insane, ard that the Sisters are peculiar
moral treatment OF the insane in opposition the
socalied physical reatIasn IS used IN said institu-
ton untrue. Mr.. Rogers also stated that though
the reports state that puuiShmeuts scarcely
sorted TO- the evidence would prove that severe and
vindiciiye punishmentS were often res"rted to.
Mr.. Rogers stated that he would offer in evidence
an account OF visit of DR.. .Amasiah brigham, the
editor Of the only journal 5Tinsanity in this country
to the institution in 1915, in which Dr. Stokes atten-
ton called to certain defects in the institution
This objected to by the counsel for the defend
ants but permitted by Honor 70 be read, though
he did not decide that It was competent evidence.
Mr.. Rogers then read the corre5nondenCa between
DR.. Stokes and DR.. Brigham in 1913. alr R0cer8
further stated that he would show that the Reports
the Institution contained false and fraudulent state
ments. Mr.. Rogers opening statement occupied the
UE tc the hour Of adjournment and without his
concl .ding the court adjourned until Wednesday
morning, at 10 O'Clock.
VIM. j. Bosey, of VIM, for shooting at and threat
enlng to kill Roebuck Russell gave bail in the sum
IF iS 10 fba oh