Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-02-13

Radcliffe was different; he had come up to the pont
before the Court but Mr.. Preston apprehended that
MI h2 BI had f; mistaken the law;
Mr. preston then read the authority quoted nv Mr.
Ratclne aud contended ii did not apply to the ues
ton now IN dispute. Mr.. Preston referred TO the
case OF the king VS.. Keeling. and said it contained
the whole law of conspiracy lie said the connsei
Mr. Rogers, said the other day that he had drawn
many indictments for conspiracy. He would like to
KNOW one Indictment for conspiracy he had drawn
before this one-he wished to be referred to it. II
pause Tor reply, he said He referred to the cee-
brated slngle-tree case, tried few years since in
balrmore. No man is responsible for the act Of
anoher person. unless yOu show that the act done is
gone zone IN Iqrtherance of mutual and preconcerted
9esisi. GU must show cooperation and common
design; you must show that they were combined for
common illegal purpose before acts and declarations
W one person can be evidence against another person
Ell Preston said he did not SEQ how the evidence
sought to be adduced had anything to do with the
question before the Court.
chain Of evidence to show that Sister Alousia was
one of those engaged with Dr. Stokes in carrying On
-, MIR. Preston-"Your Honor has stated the proposi
nG iI clearly and fairly, and hope to make myself
Iu!ly understood. But you must first show the con-
spacy and then you may show acts done in further
ance OF the conspiracy Because DR.. Stokes is Dby-
slcian both Of Mount Hone and Of the Retreat, non
e22nsfat that Mary Blenkinsop, who is in Mount
Hope Is engaged in the conspiracy If you go to the
length contended for by the counsel on the other side
then II you prove that one is Sister of Charity no
matter what part OF the country she is in you can
connect with this Indictment, and all of them could
constructed like a spider weaves his web Is it con-
celyable because Dr. Stokes, who is scientific man
and Christian gentleman, may have erred in his re
ports of the Institution that Mary Benkinsop is to
pc entangled in the meShes of this net the indic-
ment? When the conspiracy is proved, then Won
may show acts in furtherance of the conspiracy but
let 1t not be presumed, let 1t not be attempted to be
eviscerated from these Reports.
Mr.. Preston referred to the case of the Queen vs.
O'Connell, and commented on it.
Mr.. Preston said that the Institution, in some re-
spectS resembled hotel, but one whero everything
was better conducted than in any hotel; it seemed
ike home. and his Honor would so find it. if he
VISITED 1t; home where persons afflicted with this
awful maady, insanity, were better cared for than
they could be anywhere else Mr.. Preston said that
BractOn, Hawkins, Hale never looked forward to
such constructive conspiracy, crime as is sought
to be adduced here.
IT was lnconceivable that respectable gentleman
and physician of long standing, like DIR. Stokes and
persons who belonged to an order that bowed down
conSpired to cheat and lie in the manner contended
for on the other side.
These things ought not to be presumed except from
evidence about which there can he no dispute, and
not from insane persons The defence sought an in
Testlgaton, and at proper time the defence would
request Ills Honor to go and visit the institution on
some day to ho named by His Honor in company
with the counsel on both sides, and see for himself
how matters conducted. This institution had
done much good, and should it be blotted out, the
community would feel the loss
His Honor said the counsels argument had been
directed more to the effect than the admissbty of
the evidence. The question was. what connection
had this lady with the institution? and il my opinion
the question legal one. The effect of this evil
dence is question to be determined hereafter.
Court then adjourned.