The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-05-03

yesterday morning usual, and proceeded, in
the first place, to the trial Of DoMINIoK MORTON,
who had been previously arraigned for Grand
Larceny. The accused was brought to the stand,
and the counsel assigned him by the Court,
ASHER D. COHEN, Esq, appeared for the defence.
The prisoner exercised his right Of challenge and
after the Jurors selected were sworn the Attorney
General explained to the Jury the law under
which the indictment was drawn, and called the
witnesses for the State.
Tho testimony WAS to the effect that on the
afternoon of some day in February last, P. Null
KA1 went into COOKS bar-room, corner OF Church
and Chalmers streets, having then in his posses
sion 1915 in treasury notes and bank bills; one due
bill for $4,000; one due bill for $1s5; gold coin to
the amount Of $168; pooket-book, and watch and
chain. That he there took ono drink and imme-
diately became insensible, in which state he con-
tinued for six hours, and when he revived found
himself at the Of Market street and EastBay;
that he was sick from the effects Of tho liquor for
| five or six weeks; that some man, supposed to be
tho prisoner at the bar, invited MuLKA1 into the
| bar-room, and was there when he drank; that the
matter was reported to the police; that they ar
rested Cook and obtained some Of the money
| from him; that on Information obtained by officer
| COATES, MORTON WAS arrested when he stated that
he had taken the pocket book with $160, and the
watch and chain of MuLKAI; but that he had taken
it from him for safety, as he WAS lying the floor
too drunk to take care Of 1t himself, and that he
had given it over to SAUNDERS.
No evidence was offered on the part Of the &C.
cused, and the Attorney General addressed the
Jury on behalf of the prosecution.
ASHER D. COHEN, Esq, then commented on the
evidence in behalf Of the prisoner, contending
that it was insufficient to fasten guilt upon him;
that he had acted with view to the interest OF
the prosecutor, and had surrendered what he had
taken to the officer Of the law also submitting to
the Court that there should have been some evi.
dence Of the genuineness Of the bills and notes.
The Jury retired after the charge Of the Judge,
and returned with the verdict OF "Not Guilty"
The next case called was the State us. FERGUSON
and SMITH, for nuisance in carrying on turpen.
tine distlery within the city limits, and Gen. JAS
CONNER appeared for the defence
After the facts Of the case we're presented in
evidence, the counsel for defendants contendeG
that the present indictment must be sustained Il
sustained, either on the ground Of Inconvenience
or danger. That annoyance was penalty which
one had to pay for living in city-cited the case
OF timer carrying on his business in the Temple
in ENGLAND, to the great disturbance Of three Law
chambers-which was held not to be public
nuisance; and, as to danger, maintained that ever
= the reasonable fears or men we're not Sufficient
/ but there must be actual and positive danger
, The General referred to several authorities il
support Of his views, and concluded by urgingth
Jury not to interfere with legitimate busines
? from which no damage was proved to have arisen
Attorney General HAYNE replied: He stated tha
the question Of nuisance in similar cases had no
/ before been fairly brought before court Of thi
> community, from their extreme sensitiveneas a
: to interfering with the growth and prosperity @
{ business. Such was not the case in other cities
q Disputed the position taken by the defence tina
the apprehension OF danger was not sufficient t
constitute a nuisance, and contended that ther
8 existed no necessity for carrying on turpentip
4 distilleries in the city-that the business wou'
o suffer no injury by being conducted elsewhere
Q and that there was positive danger and hurt t
property in their vicinity. Col. HAYNE also &C
verted to the law in support OF his positions.
z Judge GLOVER charged the Jury as to the la
and their duty in relation to the oase and they
,r tired to deliberate.
Is The Court then adjourned.