Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1866-11-03
FMANkLIN oommoN rLEAs.
FR1pAY, Nov

Merrill Indictment for perjury. The Court
was occupied during the forenoon, and un-
iii one O'clock p. M. in hearing the argi'-
nents Of counsel and in the delivery OF the
judges charge to the jury. There WAS
quite large number of spectators in the
Courtroom, who remained during the en-
tire session, anxiously watching what was
going on, and listening to all that was said.
The jury were addressed by Messrs Taylor
and Converse for the defense, and Rankin
for the prosecution. Counsel on each side
seemed to have thrown themselves into the
case with earnestness and displayed, In
their appeals to the jury and their argu-
ments to the Court forensic eloqueuce as
well as legal learning and ability.
uy9 THE guDoE's CHARGES 3NT"
AS there were some points in the charge
of the Judge 70 the jury oCwoFe than usual usual
interest, we present a brief 'abstraGt.s
The indictment charges the defendant
with having made application to the Pro-
bate Court Of this county for q, marriage
license, and that on such application, he
swore, inlan affidavit, then and there made
by him, tothe statement that hewas an un-.
married man, knowing the same. to be false!
1t was said that because. the application
was made to the Deputy Clerk of the Pro-l
bate Court in the absence Of the Judge,
there was no matter pending before the
Court. But there was q matter. pending
before the Court when the eapplicationl for
the license was made to the Clerk, though
the Judge was not bodily present: ''' NIX
If the defendant went Ito the room or
office Of the Probate Court, in the usual
season for transacting business, and made
an application for a license to the Deputy
Clerk, then the matter of granting the IL,
cense was pending before the Courtthough
the Jnd ge might be temporarily absent. p.
The Jury must inquire as to, three things:
1st,, AS to whether there was an1application
made for marriage license, which was
pending In the Probate Court; I'd. AS to
whether the defendant made the affidavit
In question, and was sworn to its truth by
the Deputy Clerk; Sd. As to whether the
defendant was, at the time of making the
affidavit, a married man, and knew the
fact. 10 L,G3w 5lTg .f, i9 sin.Wti
This last consideration brings up the
question, as to what may constitute a legal
marriage. Marriage is regarded in law as
a civil contract, and our statute has pre-
scribed certain forms to be observed as evil
dence Of such contract. But our Supreme
Court has decided that an agreement OF
parties, competentto contract, to contract
to be executed forthwith, to become husband
and wife,, and cohabitation aftercward in
pursuance of such contract, make valid
marriage. boz. N..t'I7aL' yo5i9}l ''
AS to the proof of amarriage, cohabita-
tion, reputation, confessioh-none of these,
singly and alone is sufficient, but should all
taken into the account, together with the be
conduct of the parties toward each other
and other circumstances bearing upon the
question. o.. 10 yla ra5 8a.ra 'aH
If it were possible TO reconcile the con-
duct aud statements Of the party accused
with reasonable hypothesis of his inno-
cence, it was the duty of the jury to do So
and to resolve reasonable doubtof any
material fact in his favor. I'D VIZ.
Perjury must be made out by something
more than the statement Of one witness.
The rule is that there should be two wit
nesses to falsify the fact sworn to as true
by the accused, or. one witness, with cor
roborating circumstances, making the tes-
timony equivalent to that OF two witnesses,
Theljury having received the charge Of
! the Court, retired to consider upon their
, verdict. $50 v. ''' '''." i2i.iuIn22 '..',.1
Inithe afternoon, the jury, after q short
4 absence, returned into Court, with a verdict
finding the defendant guilty of perjury, as
charged in the Indictment. s.In1.1 ..'I'
! The State Of Ohio against VIM. King
Indictment found at March, term,f 1856, fol
stealing horse from Calvin Mitchell. ,Tri-
al and verdict Of guilty,oS' SG I'D ats, . ' ~" !"
The State of Ohio against Charles Stew
! art, James Mullen and John Slater. Indict-
ment found at March term, 1866, for rob-
berry committed by assaultlng Michael Os,
born on the first day of January, 1866, and
stealing from him a pocket 'book and 80;
in greenbacks. Stewart and Mullen were
tried at the last term, convicted and sen.
! fenced to the Peniteptiary, .li .o osyU IN
The trial of the remaining defendant
Slater, came on this (Friday) afternoon =
M. H. Mann for the prosecution; DeLany
for the defense. A jury was impaheled
and sworn, and progress made in the ex'
animation of witnesses. = P'''ip ~ :"
Sia sI u5 Opera House. q ~ ,ta 20
+ The Opera House was filled last night
l. In l. Ixaxt