Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-02-13
THE MOUNT HOPE CONSPIRACY CASE.


i'4iANA'I tNSt JUN = F'uSuT fsSt StllG hLtOT-
State vs. Dr.. William II. Stokes and Mary Blen-
| etc. Messrs John T. Ensor, Alexander N. Rogers.
and Daniel Radcliffe for the prosecution and Messrs.
Richard j. Cuttings Eugene Cummiskey William p.
| Preston, and Wm. Schley for the defence.
This morning his Honor stated that before pro-
eeelng further he thought it proper to state that he
had received anonymous letter disappearing Of his
rulings, and suggesting consequences and effects.
This letter purpored TO be from one Of his friends
put was not from one OF his trends lie had put the
matter in train OF investigation and if the author
| was discovered he would be punished Among the
catalogue OF crimes it was enc to attempt to
interfere with the proceedings Of justice. lie SAID
that he would at proper time file the letter in the
cause, so 1t might go with the Indictment.
! Mr.. Sehley rose and said he entirely approved of
| thing had occurred and said if the author was dis
covered he deserved punishment. His HOnOrS
| course throughout the had been marked with
the utmost courtesy and urbanty to the counsel on
Mr.. Preston and Mr.. Radcliffe rose and said they
conquered with what had been said by his Honor and
His Honor said that in order to see bow the matter
bore upon the question in issue: it was well to see
| how matters stood Miss flemmng had been sworn,
and her evidence partly taken and the objections to
| her competency, were then Withdrawn temporarily,
be better to go on with her evidence and when the
| evidence on both sides was concluded he would de-
eide upon the question OF her competency Other
wise he would have to go all this evidence again
| on the question of Miss Flemming's erediby.
Mr.. Schley said that the course suggested by his
Honor would time, and that the counsel for the
defence you'd concur In the course suggested by his
IudJ J1ey OHercu Ill IIe unQlng OF
the Jury under the writ dc Ita9'Go 'nguIe4do and
Dr. Barstow's dep0si0n, which he thought prtAta
tGctc evidence of Miss FleRmng incOmpetcncy not
absolutely conclusive.
Mr.. Rogers said he would prefer. his Honor to de-
eide the question of Miss Trimmings competency
now, as i would save time and discussion hereafter.
Mr.. Schley said that when witness offered
| there was the proper time to .obeet and offered
several illustrations to sustain his proposition.
His Honor. in order to save time suggested that he
| would hear Miss Flemmng's evidence now and de-
eide the question of her competency hereafter and
| now the proper time the defence to offer
evidence the finding Of the Jury, pronouncing Miss
Flemming luuatc, and Dr. BarStOw's deposition on
that point the effect OF which his Honor would decide
| upon hereafter.
! Mr. Radcliffe thought there was really no question
| before the Court and no cause for a discussion.
Mr.. Rogers said it had been settled by the fifteen
judges Of England that insanity not sufficient to
Mr. Preston thought the matter had better be set
tied now, as it would arise with regard to every
| witness offered by the prosecution He said Miss
Flemuling not competent and he had authorities
to prove it, and tho public mind ought not to be in
! their evidence in this cause.
| Miss .Flemmng recalled for prosecution. I was
| placed in Mount Hope Institution the 9Th of De-
! cembcr, 1858. When I was first put there [ was
placed on passage. where there were a number of
persons, some sane, some insane Miss DestOne was
| there When J was six weeks there, the Superior
Sister Alouisia said it was rot proper that should
| he put there, and was put in room without any
Mr. Scbley said that he objected to giving in evil
dence h2 declarations OF Sister Alouisia and all the
| case.
| Mr.. tatclte said that the indictment charged
conspiracy between DR.. Stokes and Mary Blenkinsor
and certain other persons to the jury unknown Sis
| ter A0uisia one Of them.
s}r' rogers SAD TINS was part OF the res ges'@
Mr.. Schley said he had asked for reason. and in
stead of reason being given, assertion was made
Sister AlouiSia was not person to the jurors I'M
known She the Superior Of the institution and
it was n9t far in the counsel on the other side to
declarations of Sister Aouisia were not proper and
Mr. Radcliffe said that the prosecution proposed to
show that the Sisters A0gllSla and IuDhenia
Btenklnsop' were acting IN accordance with the re-
Mr. Rogers differed slightly from his colleague: he
proposed TO offer in evidence the whole of the acts
and dec aruOnS of those connected with the insti-
tuition; he d not wish to prove facts by their deca-
ratlonS, but only u show that those declarations
were made It was part of the res ass'Ge. He also
nurses and attendants by their foolish way of talk
evidence the declarations Of the patients in the in
stuti0n. of attendants in the institution OF visitors
to it; but he could give in evidence the declarations
Of those in charge ct the institution.
Mr.. Rogers said the; declarations as declarations,
were not evidence, but they were part of the res
gesi". He thought he could show, by the declare
tons of her attendants and nurses that they thought
Miss Mary llemming was not insane He wished ia
show by their declarations that they considered her
not a bad patient but conyalescing patient.
His Honor said-Was DR., Stokes present? Do you
propose to make Dr.. Stokes responsible for things
that occurred when he was not present? Would you
make Dr. Stokes response ble for negligence?
MIR. R0gerS-I think he not present at that
particular time. would make him responsible for
acts LAT occurred when he was not there and also
for negligence These declarations part of the |
res gcsir: they ssh09 : hat the attendants there
thought Of the condition of Miss temning's mind.
alr. Schley said, What was proposed to be shown
by this evidence? They proposed to show by the acts
and declarations Of the attendants that Sister Aouisia
considered Miss teng zane sane T Gnna but nor
adangerous patiene, am might have given her f6er-
ties. Sister Aiouisa was living legson and might
be put upon the stand to testify
Hig Honor remarked that he did not see how the /
prosecution could put In evidence the particular acts
4 1,Tfs -l,yrt
NJ Rogers said this difficulty had arisen rem his
short opening statement as he then toresaw it might
arise,
The Judge remarked, Did you not make full
opening statement
Mr. Rogers-In one sense did and in another |
did not must show this conspiracy step by step; / |
cannot make 1t ore INK shorter. Dr. Stokes and
Mary Blenkinsop must have known how Mary Elem
ming treated, and also the condition of her mind
| do not care whether Dr. Stokes knew how Mis-
Flemming was treated. lie asserts that the patients
were well treated; we propose to show that his state
ments in this respect are not true and whether he
knew the patients badly treated or not makes
no difference. II he ASSERTED either what he knew to
be untrue or what he did not knoW p e true, some
evidence against him if show that his decIarations
in either case are not true
Mr.. Ensgr said quite Il number of law points had
been objected to- but that objection vs. I?avdd pro
yideG the prosecution would show Dr.. Stokes correc-
Mr. sehley intergupting Mr.. Ensor, I'VE do not
wish to ask the opinion of the C0unse. the other
the opinion Of urists this point, to show authors
ties to prove that this evidence is admissible.
with the Institution, to show that she acted in
cert with DR.. Stokes, expect to show acts of mis-
management in the institution. and thus connect her
with the government of the institution and with the
conspiracy. We wish to show the acts and decIara-
ions of those in charge of the institution for the last
twenty years"
Mr.. Gettings here rose, and began to discuss the
question: when his Honor remarked that if the mat
ter for his decision now, he would rule
the evidence inadmlsSibe, unless there evidence
to connect Sister Alguisia with the conspiracy.
Mr. Cuttings said that the counsel the other side
had cOntended that this evidence part of the
res qcRee but it was not What were the defendants
suade persons having charge Of the insane to put them
under the charge Of Mary Blenknsop. and DR.. VIM.
II. Stokes with intent to cheat and defraud Now
this applied 10 time when DIR. Stokes physician
and Mary Blenkinsop was superintendent Of the in
tituton and al EVIDENCE OF acts done and declar9-
sniraey and was NOT admissible He defied Cont or
counsel produce where general evidence tend
ing prove any other conspiracy except that charged
in the Indictment vas admitted Mr. Cuttings refer;
Johnson reports, and other authorities in support of
this position
His Honor remarked that there was no proposition
before the Court as he had decided that the acts and
declarations Of Sister AOuisia not admissible,
unless the prosecution offered evidence to connect
her with the conspiracy,
Mr. Radcliffe said there was no question before the
Court until they proved Sister Alouisia connection
with the conspiracy.
Mr.. Rogers-"Miss Femming, what was the con-
necton Of the lady of whom we have been speaking |
with Mount Hope institution 2"
Mr.. Sehey here rose and objected to the evidence
on the grounds stated in Mr.. Cuttings argument a
few minutes ago. and cOntended this evidence was |
not pertinent to the issue The parties could not be
convicted of any other conspiracy except that charged
IN the indictment and the evidence now proposed to
be offered irrelevant to the charge preferred in
the Indictment. What did the prosecution propose
to prove? They wished prove that Sister Alouisia
superintendent of the institution, and to put in
evidence her acts and declarations while occupying
that position; but suppose they did prove it, what
relevancy had all this to the specific conspiracy |
with which the defendants were charged p
The defence wished this point decided now. The de-
fence commended that nothing that was said, nothing
that was done, while sister Alousia superintend
ent, was admissible in evidence against the defend
ants, unless it tended to show that the defendants
guilty of the charge alleged in the Indictment
Mr.. Rogers said he would dispose of the matter in
about ten sentences. DR.. Stokes and Mary Blenkin-
sop made certain statements, did they make these |
statements knowing them to be false or not knowing
them to be true? Wepropose to show that the state
ments made by DR.. Stokes and Mary Blenknsop were |
not true. The theory Of the prosecution is that we
must show certain statements made by Dr. Stokes |
and MARY Blenkinsop in the Reports of the Institu-
ton and then show that the statements made in those
reports not true. to show quo these reports
were made, and from showing the ialsty Of these re-