Delaware Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1843-1874, 1866-05-17

osuld not agree With him In many respects. Iie'
10 said justice made no distinction Of color, 50
ut throughout the entire trial the very At az
yer, trusted TO the jury to decide impartially b,
etwesa tire guilt or innocence Of the prison th
r. The acts Of Congress, ratified By at ieast q
Of all the States, had declared q
very man free, but as long as the prisoner
Fas designated In the indictment a. "free v
egro it was calculated to establish Preju-t
lice against the prisoner. he did not attempt r
o shield the man who did the deed-he de-
erved retribu,ioa And IL should be melted out
o him. The prosecution had failed to prove '
be connection Of the prisoner with the affair. .
The girl might have been compelled to say,
when the police brought this man before her
hat he was the man, In order to get rid Of
them, for they might have worried her life
out,by bringing new man every day. He was
the third man brought, and they would have
kept on bringing them to make 1t appear they
were vigorously at work to ferret out the VII
lain. He never knew o policeman but who /
was always suspeoting somebody. They al
ways carried search warrant In one eye and |
suspicion in the other. The whole police force |
nad been brought to testify against the pris- |
ouer, but there was nothing ELECTED proving
aim to be the man. The cut on the neck OF
the girl was just such scratch as a child
N ght make. Mr.. Brown coeti Iued speakinz
ab 3ut two hours.
On the conclusion of Mr.. Browns remarks
Mr., Moore, the Attorney General, addressed
the jury. He did not believe there was any
prejudice against the prisoner on account OF
his color. He did net believe that in the most
Southern State jury could be found who
would oonvict q man on account of his color.
| The identity OF the prisoner could not be
l sd Tbo< - baA ~ . no
| who cut her throat. The description Of the
clothes by her correspondent exactly with
those found in his house, aud 10 the pants was
the pocket book stolen from her. From the
evidence they could not but believe him guilty
and go he felt certain they would return their
verdict He spoke fer one hour and three.
quarters.
Chief Justice Gilpin then charged the jury.
u He stated that the case had been one of great
labor, and the counsel had manifested great
ability In the conduct of it, The Jury was
now called on to decide It. 1t involved the
life OF the accused. The question to be con-
sdered did he break and enter the house in
the night time. Both breaking and entering
the house was necessary to make 1t burglary
and it must have been at night. Very slight
/ breaking, however, was all that was necessary
even though 1t were only the raising OF win
Q dow sash not fastened down except BY it's OWE
> weight. Before the jury could find him guilty
z they must be satisfied that the prisoner wal
: the man. 10 this case the proof was both d
o rect and circumstan tial-direct az regarded
= the identity Of the man, and circumstantia
as to the clothing. the articles found in BIZ
e pockets, and the footprints seemed to corrob.
2 crate her statements. If the jury were no
satisfied as to the identy of the ma the cas-
ended here. The whereabouts of the prisone
!, had only been accounted for 10 10 minute
after one o'clock, and there was no evidenc,
J. that he remained in bed. The next question
!, to be considered was, whether he entered tn
house with intent to kill either LiHEie Griffith
a or Chance. II he did, whether they were ii
the house at the time or not, the offence wa
committed. They would have 10 look to ex
7 tarual evidences as indicating the intention
of the heart. The time of entry, his conduc
while there, and language were proper matter
:. to be considered. The intent generally ma
.. be presumed from what the burglar does ate
:, his entrance. The question they were to d.
i eide was whether be were guilty or not gull,
=. as indicted. 1t, after examining the evldenc,
, they entertained reasonable doubt of hi
guilt, their verdict should be in his favor.
IN The case was given to the jury about
4. o'clock, P. NJ, who retired ard returned
-. about half an hour with verdict of guilty.
% Throughout the entire trial the prisone
maintained remarkable composure.
MONDAY MoRNIss met at l0A o'crl
The Chief Justice called the attention
=. the Grand Jury to the insufaeiency OF Il
building now occupied as Court House.
"a was disgrace to the County and enough
Of destroy the health Of any one. The lest fe
" days had shown it. the room had been pac
~ ed with human beings. There was nothi
a here calculated to conduce to the comfort
~ any one-neither room or ventilation. I'll
~ ia the worst Court House in the State, q
ea that in the richest County of the State. Re
and Sussex Counties have large and comfsl
"a able rooms for their Court Houses. When
~ new Court House is built it should be nj
IN the great thoroughfare OF the County. As
10 now is il was standing rsproach to the COZ
h.. ty. he hoped the matter wen Id be broul
- before the public.
Se Alexander NJ. Biddle vs.. Richard A. Fras
oo Some 10 or 15 years ago Mr.. Frasier MARI
- Mr.. Biddle's daughter. About 8 Or 6 ye
ago, Mr.. Frasler, then residing In Marylal
sent his wife and children TO her faths
In house, where they have ever since been clio
by ed and fed by Mr.. Biddle. This action v
T D brought to recover from Frazier for ths su
ne port Of them.
- @. B. Rodney for plaintiff; Thomas F. b
s1h ard for defendant.
"n Francis Frazier sworn-I am in my L
c. year; my father lives al Head of Sassafr
mo Maryland; | live at my grandtathers, Mr.. B
die; have been with him about 0 years; W,
IN there with my mother and sister; have Ii
YER with him ever since we first came there;
reason we left there was because my fat
wn did not treat my neither right; my father
'r- Mr.. Brice to bring us to grandfather
have been to my fathers house three til
M sinee; he has never been to see as since
lei left grandfather has clothed me and sent
to school.
H. Cross examined--I was six years OLD vi
ms we left fathers; father weAt to Mr.. Brice
told us he would call for US the next morn
ng, to take us to ny grandfather; we came up
81 Mr.. Brice's carriage; father did not refuse
lch send his carriage; the first time visited
nrt father he wanted me to remain with him;
grandfather told me to do as pleased;
ng Stewart came in 1868 to see If he could gel
Inc to go back.
samuel b. Sutton, sworn--Know Mr..
me Mrs Frazier; she lives with her father, Mr.. I
Ia die; she has lived there for the last three
four years; the board for ladies in that ne
I'VE borhood is from So to 81 per week for q
Ger dren, about So or So SO; it would rate at /,
$40 to clothe a lady year; for q child $l2
On SIS.
In The evidence for the plaintiff here clos
when Mr.. bayard addressed the jury, stat
ia that the defendant had provided for bis fan
home in Maryland, and that house had ne
Ia been closed against them; he would show I
Mr.. Frazier had tried to get his children
uf live with him, and that Mr.. Biddle had und
her taken to support them without just cause.
al. VIM. Jones, sworn-Liye near Mr. Frazi
the he lives where he did In 1858; in 1861 W
ids with Mr. Frazier to St. Georges to get his 8
eht but could not f1nd him; another time we W
the to Delaware City fer the same purpose; do
ich know why Mrs. Frazier left her husband, ne
Iis- saw other than good treatment OF her.
My Mr.. Rodney claimed for the defendant