Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-02-15
THE MOUNT HOPE CONSPIRACY CASE.
[Reported For the Rnltimore nailu commorrial

- laval
ney.
State VS.. DR.. William H. Stokes and Mary Blen-
klnsop indicted for conspiracy to cheat and deraud,
and Daniel Radcliffe for the prosecution and Messrs
Richard j. Cuttings, Eugene Cummiskey, William P.
Preston. and VIM. Schley for the defence.
His Honor announced this morning that he had re-
ceiyed another anonymous communication, butmade
no comments upon it. or any ausion to its contents
from no connected directly or remotely with the
prosecution or defence.
His Honor then gave his opinion upon the admissi-
pity OF evidence showing the general treatment Of
Miss Mary Flemming while at the Institution. He
said he had already ruled that particular Of at
PENDANTS and others the Institution could not be
gwen unless It was shown that DIR. Stokes knew and
approved of the act. Now assuming that Miss Elem
ming was badly treated, does that tend to show a
conspiracy between Dr.. Stokes and Mary Bienkin-
sop, without you have evidence to show they knew
OF her treatment and approved of it? The Court
| ting the Reports he did not rule that the general
treatment of any person be given in evidence, and
| certainly did not so understand his rulings.
1t is competent for the prosecution to show how
the Institution was generally managed and conduct
ed Tor the purpose of contTadcting the Reports of
Dr. Stokes. and showing they were not true II they
had evidence to prove it. But the prosecution would
not give in evidence the general treatment of Miss
Fiemmlng' or OF any other patient IN the institution
for the purpose of proving the conspiracy, show
ing that the Reports Of DR.; Stokes were not true,
DR.. Stokes and Mary Blenkinsop knew of the treat
| ment of the particular individual whose general
| treatment was proposed to be shown. and approved
1
| by the prosecution is inadmissable.
Mr.. Radcliffe then rose and said that the prosecu-
ton respectfully bowed to the ruling Of the Court
| knowing the Court was not swayed by influence or
prejudice to one side or the other; but the effect
| of the ruling was apparent to every one he would
ask the Court to indulge counsel for the prosecu-
ton with leave of absence for five minutes so they
might consult as to the they should pursue,
| which granted.
Counsel for prosecution retire and consult Messrs
Ensor Rogers and Radcliffe then left the courtroom
for few moments for the purpose of Consultation
| Mr Enso nd Said tbof
under tho ruling of the Court the prosecution could
not sustain their The counsel for the prosecu-
ton had thought differently from His Honor as to the
manner IN which the conspiracy could be proved. To
his decision they respectfully bowed. They thought
they might give in evidence evidence of the general
treatment of particular individuals, and from that
treatment the existence of the conspiracy might be
Inferred His Honor had decided otherwise, and
therefore the counsel for the prosecution would enter
| aoHe proseql!t OF the case.
Mr. Cuttings said that plea of not guilty should
| Mr.. Ensor said that he could not enter plea of
not guilty" he did not feel satisfied to say that and
tho effect of the entry of no proseq was the same
ms plea of not guilty. He said that he would be
satisfied with whateyer entry His Honor might make
| entered.
| Mr.. Rodgers said the effect Of an entry of noUe
p0SeQ1t was the same that of plea of not guilty.
| and he could not consent to enter plea of not
Mr.. Scbley rose and said that in parting from the
case he desired to express the thanks of the counsel
Tor the prosecution for the kindness and courtesy
1
! he desired to say that whatever passes had taken
place between the counsel for the prosecution and for
the defence in the course Of the trial he hoped they
would now be forgotten and that they would part in
| good feeling.
| His Honor said he would either hear an argument
aS to whether noHe proseqgt should be entered or
| and decide as he thought right
Mi. Scbiey said he would argue the matter and
said tha the entry of noe proscqu was not proper
one, but when the counsel for the prosecution aban-
doned the case, the proper entry peay of not
90
be discharged, as IN eases of disagreement, etc.
Mr.. Preston said the proper entry was mot
guilty; he said the parties came here with a pre-
SUMPTION that they weres not guilty" why, then
when they had been brought here by the State send
them out with this mputation hanging over them as
n6t q plea of mot guilty."
Dr. EnSof said that he had right to enter plea
of a0e Dr0sequ, ana that the effect of the entry of
n0iie Iroseql9 was an acquittal.
MI Rogers thought the plea of noHe prosequi was
the proper one TO be entered.
Mr.. Radcliffe said he came into this case without
any feeling, and the case Yas now closed and he
hoped no expressions of feeling would be INDUCED in
was made Mr.. Ratclfe said he felt no little kind,
ness for the courtesy with which he had been treated
by the counsel the other side, by the Court, and
by the counsel generally.
Considerable discussion took place between the
counsel, especially between Messrs. Ensor Rogers
and Preston. as to whether plea of not guilty" or
nc}le p-o5eUui should be entered.
Mr. Rogers especially cqntended that noile prose-
qua and not plea Of mot guilty should b. entered
diced in another prosecution should be begun IN
the State against the same parties, or against the In
| Stitut0n.
George NJ. Gill, ESQ, who happened to be in court
stated that the practice in the State had always been
to enter plea of mot guilty when the State wished
to abandon prosecution after jury was sworn and
refarred 10 case where Chief J,1sticn Tono, eod q
node proaequi might be entered by the District At
torney in case of treason where the defendant had
plea~ee lot guilty, and where a jury had not been
sworn, but had yery been sworn it would not have
been in the power of the iiStt Attorney to enter
Mr.. Cuttings said that Mr.. Grason, once prosecut-
ing attorney for Cecil County, said that Judge Con-
stable once decided in case there that the States
Attorney had no power to enter noHe prosequi Mr.
] Cuttings said he had never known a case where a
RoLte prO5eQ.s was entered. and he thought under
the Constitution tho GqylrnQE Qn;y had tie power
Mr.. Grason said he had been alluded TO- bit he de-
sired to state that he had not volunteered his opin
ion to the practice in this State on this point he
| had been asked what the practice in Cecil was when
he prosecuting attorney, and had cited the case
decided by Judge Constable and which had been al
uded to, but he had not volunteered his opinion in
| the matter.
! His Honor said the question rose without any ex-
pecta.ion his part and he had not kept any notice
of the order tha discussion and if the counsel ON
| either side desired to be heard. ne N0I hear them
Mr.. Rogers SAID he thought it was matter in the
discretion of the Court, and he thought the dscre-
ton of the Court should be exercised in the manner
commanded for by the counsel for the prosecution.
Mr.. Presto. read on authority from the case Of
Armstrong ana Re2taa u show that the court would
pay regard to the opinion q nbers Of the bar on
questions of practice. His honor said this was an
important question as to the right Of the States Al
toney 70 ept9T Particular plea, and as itwould be
settling the practice IN tiS COurL he would prefer In
look into the matter, other,'se he might establish
practice, which he might hereafter regret He ex-
pressed his thanks TO The counsel IN the cause
i9T tler courtesy to nm during the trial of the
time, it was through no feeling of discourtesv to
then, but TO coniine them to the points under con
Slderauoh a. especially he desired to say this with
regard to the Juuict counsel in the cause, whose
quckness of perception sonletiE.aS caused him to
leap over the point under discussion to some 5ther
point which though connected with the point under
discussion Yves not the same as that under discussion
through it arose afterwards.
lie said he had not decided any points on merely
technical grounds but, in accordance with law and
justice, and if he had erred in his rulings the error
had been one Of the head and not of the heart He
said he would decide upon the proper plea to be en-
tered in tb , case as soon as possible.
After his Honor made these remarks, he said he
would now Ale ~leh The clerk the two anonymous
letters he had received in regard to he case, which
he directed the clerk to Ole with the Indictment and
not to permit them to go out Of the Office We give
BALTIMORE, Feb. :, 1866.
hon. d. c. IL Emo,1-Dear Sir:-Tt is but right
that you should know that many of your warm per-
sopal and political friends are both surprised and
pained at the course you have pursued in the trial
now in urogr1sS before your eourt-we ailude TO the
Mount Hope case-your ruling already showing that
YOU are disposed to try the not the grounds of
Justice but on technical points of law; and again. that
you should have allowed yourself to be appointed to
ties being tried shrunk from a decision by
Jury of their peers In case SO directly interesting
this whole community, no matter how honorable the
character of the Judge should he take it upon him
self to determine question of such importance. Al
ready there are wanting those to suggest that an
undue influence has been brought to bear upon your
mind by the powerful religious organization who
directly interested in this trial. your friends know
that your honesty of intention fOrbds this and are
therefore anxious that nothing in your conduct even
by duplicating, may cause one word to be uttered
against your reputation as an honest judge. God
grant that justice and that alone may be melted out
TO those who are now being tried before your court
The witness name shall be handed you at the proper
time.
BALTIMORE, February a, 1856.
TO tie Hon. Judge E!iory, IorsontO,ca-Dear Sir:
You stated on the opening Of the court of Monday
morning that you had received on Friday an anOny-
nous communication, etc. You also say you will not
allow such communications to influence you, which
it is to be hoped will be the case that you may give
the case full and impartial hearing. But it seems
to me that your rulings Monday different from
Friday and some other days in the case. (Here fol-
lows a remark in reference TO one Of the counsel
plOyed in the case If there is nothing wrong in the
Mount Hope, why do they persist i'll the case they
have many objections to every question the coun
sci for the State asks but rather request full and fair
ton to the present time Be assured. dear sir that
the respectable part Of the community watching
your rulings in the cause with deep interest and
though they may not know much about law still
they claim to know what is right. and as YOU are
made the instrument by which justice must be DONE
therefore they expect it at your hands
FROM FRIEND OF JUSTICE IN ALL THINGS.
The crowd in the Court House here began to de-
part, and in short time tbs large audience which