Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-02-14
THE MOUNT HOPE CONSPIRACY CASE.


MISS MARY Recalled IOr
Fort v Washington, on the Hudson, nine miles from
New York was taken to Mount Hope by my sister,
Ellen Flemming, and my brother Thomas Flemming
the 9Th of December 1853; was first taken the
Institution near the city-the Retreat not then
begun When first came to the Institution was
received by Sister Teresa the other Sisters were then
IN a retreat was taken into passage where there
were some sane and some insane; l asked to
see the superior; the next day saw her and Dr.,
not insane; / told her how l was brought there;
she said L was not insane and my family should
R f Dr. soFs B enn T
sane that seemed worried, that | needed no medl-
cal attendance and did not see him for some days;
confined known as Sister Serena; she treated
Teresa Kimm; remained at the house near town.
Mount Hope, one year and nine months; the num-
Der OF Sisters officiating in the house near town was
about nineteen or twenty cant say exactly; | re
member most of their names; | met there Sister
named Stanislaus; she had charge OF the dining
room; l do not know her worldly name Sister Ag-
mes not there while was there; Sister Theatne
was there; she had charge of the gentleman's pas
sage; ! recoect a Sister there named Dolores; her
name was Peggy Mahoney; the family of the
Superior, Sister Alouisia, was Margaret or Mary
Reed; her assistant was named Sister Dolores;
Sister Teresa's worldly name was Dobbin. Sister
Gerry ise, who had charge of the passage the attic
charge Of gentleman passage; her name was Null
downy. Sister Mary Carroll was secretary of the
institution. Sister Alodia q don't know her family
nameJ bad charge Of passage. Sister Catherine
Mullen had charge of the kitchen Sister Zepharino
had charge Of the WaSh-house. Sister Angela had
charge of passage There were other sisters there
but | have forgotten their names The sisters were
constantly changed: they sent to other nstitu-
tons, and were replaced by new sisters. The oecu-
patons OF the sisters were not changed Sister Mary
Carroll was sent to Washington.
During the time was on the passage, which was
about six weeks DR.. Stokes passed through the pas
sage every day. but did not come to me: after
left the passage l did not see him for six months
Each Sister in charge of passage received the Doc
tor at the door and took him thrOugh-it and showed
him those patients he wished to see.
Did you any acts of treatment during the time
you were there. by the Sisters?
This question objected to by Mr.. Schley on the
ground that acts of other persons were evidence
agaist the defendants unless it shown these acts
done in concert with DR.. Stokes and Mary Blen
kinsop:
Mr. Radcliffe said this branch of the case had beer
committed to him by his colleagues, and he would
endeayor to conduct it in accordance with the rulings
of his Honor and he would Try to come to the pon
at once. Unless the evidence sought to be Offered
was brought home to the defendants, Mr.. Ratclif;
admitted that it would not be evidence against them
The prosecution had offered the Reports of the In
Stituton in evidence; and unless they were now al
lowed to contradict those Reports it would be worl
of superogation to put them in evidence. Is it no
evidence pertinent to the issue to show acts which
contradict those reports of Dr. Stokes and does no
this go to sustain the charges preferred in the iudic
ment? think the admission of the Reports implies
necessarily the right to contradict these Reports
to show acts of i'll treatment which falsify those Re
ports. Mr.. Radcliffe read several authorities from
ID Russell on Crimes. and Whartons Criminal Law. t
the fingers Of Dr. Stokes that Dr. stokes
essed to speak of their acts from his personal knowl
edge, and now he comes into Court and wishes to re
pudiate their actions Shame!
Mr.. Schley said this was an important point anC
began to argue the point again, when his Homo
Sd him tRa not Me- His Ell Honor d sale
genious argument yesterday, evidence could be
given of another conspiracy if the defendants were
connected with 1t, and were shown to have takeI
part in it; but this must be shown by proper anC
pertinent evidence. The question was with re
gard to TIE partieuaF acts OF the persons spoken
affect Dr.. Stokes, unless you show that he ap
proved Of them or knew them. They may be hi
agents-they may be employed by him, but how arr
their acts to affect him. unless you bring home these
acts to him, and show that he approved of them?
Mr. Radcliffe said that if these persons were there
not as merely servants, but as friends and compan
ions of Dr. Stokes, then he thought this evidence
Mr.. Rogers thought that if these persons were no
merely servants of Dr.. Stokes, but his friends anC
companions, then he thought the evidence was ad
misSibe.
His Honor said that he had decided that the par
tcular acts of the SisersIcould not be given in evi
dence unless there evidence to connect DIR
Mr. Schley said the effect of going into evidence O
the treatment of each particular individual patient
would be that the defendants would then have t.
show why it necessary to treat them So and thi
would raise collateral issues.
Ills Honor here said, rs the question you put Mr.
Radcliffe, the general treatment OF patients in the In
Mr.. Ratclife-It is general and specific, you
Honor.
evidence against DIR. Stokes, unless it shown tina
he knew and approved ofthem he might have know
Of particular acts Of i'll treatment and might hav
disapproyed of them. If the counsel for the defenc
wish to be heard on the point whether the specif
treatment of Miss Flemming is evidence or not, h
would hear them on that point.
Mr.. Cuttings said the defence objected to this evi
dence.
His Honor said the question was whether acts O
i'll treatment OF Miss Flemmlng could not be given il
evidence to show that the Reports of Dr. Stokes wer
false, and he wished the counsel to speak to tina
point, aud referred Mr. Cuttings to the Report of thu
Institution for the year 1859, pages a and 25 ant
said that he supposed the evidence proposed to b.
offered applied to that part of the report, and wa
c9ntended that the evidence offered was not lega
evidence. and was not relevant to the indictment
Mr.. Cuttings contended that the indictment charged
the defendants with conspiracy to induce, entic,
and persuade persons having charge of insane per
sons to put them under the and charge of DR.
Stokes and Mary B!enkinsop, not to put them il
Mount Hope Institution, but under the care apc
charge OF DR.. stokes and Mary Blenkinsop, and i
there was evidence to charge the defendants with
conspiracy to induce persons to put the insane in the
Mount Hope Institution, it was not evidence against
these defendants because it not evidence tc
prove the conspiracy charged in the Indictment and
no evidence tending to show any other conspiracy
than that charged in the indictment was admissible
Mr., Cuttings referred to the case of the Common
wealth against Harley, It'll Metcalfs Reports and to
case in Iredel's Reports in support of this posi-
ton.
Mr.. Cuttings said the kind of evidence sought to
be offered here to contradict the Reports of DR.
Stokes was not proper and legal evidence. When
Mr. Rogers said he proposed to show the fasity Of
DR.. Stokes Reports, by showing that he cured only
thirty patients when he claimed to have cured ninety
here was evidence to falsy the Reports, if this evi
sbS I c Of s hen M n bs Fem
mings case that did not tend to falsify Dr. Stokes
Reports because in those Reports he only summed
up the general treatment in the Institution. Again
II the prosecution could offer particular acts of III
treatment in Mary Flemming's case, it might be of
fered in every other, and the defence would show all
the aots OF kind treatment on part of those in charge
of the Institution towards the patients in the In
stitutlony and where you'd this lead? The Insttu-
ton had been in existence for twenty years, and
there were average 200 or 300 patients in the
Institution every year. and evidence the specific
treatment of every patient might be given in evil
dence, and into what a mass of collateral matter
would this lead2 How much thu would ii consume!
Mr.. Ensor said he thought His Honor had already
decided the point: he had decided that the prosecu-
ton might give evidence of acts that occurred more
than a year before the finding of this indictment
Why tien would not the prosecution give evidence
was in the Institution. sYen if it had taken place
more than year ago? The prosecution proposed to
show the general i'll treatment of Miss Flemming
while she was in the Institution. Mr.. Ensor review
ed the authority relied on By Mr.. Cuttings and con
tended it did not apply to this case Mr. Ensor said
indictment of Just the evidence they now proposed
to Offer In the Indictment they charge that Miss
treated in the alleged by DR.. Stokes in his
Reports. The prosecution proposed to show that Miss
tlemming had bean imprisoned that she had receiv-
ed no medical attendance, that she was punished
yindictively for attempting TO escape. when She
was not insane. The prosecution might GO back
twenty years for purpose of showing the existence
Of the conspiracy though they must show acts done
IN pursuance of the conspiracy. If Miss Flemmipg
was permitted to testify, the prosecution would show
that Mary Blenknsop was connected with the Insti-
tuition, and was of those who had charge of the
affairs Of the Institution and knew of these Reports
false. it might be contradicted; if it was not
revelant to the issue, and if it was not eompe-
tent evidence, the Court would rule it out If Miss
temmlng, was permitted to testify it would shorten
instead STRENGTHENING the case
Mr. Radcliffe said the proposition now being argued
was the the same that had been argued SO ably By
Mr.. Schley few days ago. to whether the evidence
proposed to be offered was germane and pertinent to
the issue. lft was not then the proposition on the
other side was mpregnabe, but Mr. Radcliffe Thought
the evidence was admissi BILE; whether it bore i'm
medlatey or remotely the charge preferred in the
indictment was another point. Mr.. Cuttings had ar
gued his point very ingeniously and ably, but Mr..
hatYlife thought he would show that the law he
discussion. f-- ei
The object of the evidence proposed to be offered
was to show the existence of the conspiracy anterior
to the year and to connect the defendants with it.
We cannot get along with this evidence, either gene
raj or special; proposed to make it general We
offered DIR, Stokes ReDOrtS evidence