The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-01-04


g mis-, who had but few minutes before been
IN the tavern, and had drunk at the bar with
Cantwell, and had been called out by him, was
found lying on the pavement bleeding and in
sensible. He was brought into the tavern by
parties there. None of them, however (all being
inside) saw or knew what had transpred out
side.
McGinnis was bruised badly about the head,
and being removed to the Hospital, died in a
few hours from eifusion of blood upon the brain,
caused by the blows he had received.
The Commonwealth was not able to produce
any witness as to the actual beating, but 1t was
shown that the deceased went outside the house
at the request of the defendant; that he was
seen almost Immediately after; and when de-
ceased was first discovered lying on the pave
ment in front of the tavern, Just across the
street, and that notwithstanding he was mar
I1ed man with family, he within day or two,
left the city, and did not return for more than
q year.
The defense relied upon good haracter, the
fact that when Cantwell returned to the city he
surrendered himself to the officers of the law,
the fact developed by the evidence that the UNI
known man, who had drunk at the bar at about
the same time with the deceased and the defend
ant had gone out the door of the tavern and had
not since been seen or heard OF, and upon the
general weakness of the Commonwealth's case.
The Jury was together dunng the night, and
this morning rendered a verdict of not guilty.
District Attorney Mann for the Commonwealth;
Daniel Dougherty for defendant.
Commonwealth VS. Jefferson Spanier This
panpelled, the trial proceeded. The defendant
is indicted for the murder of Patrick j. Con-
cannon, on the evening of the 18th of October,
1865, in Gaskill street, near Third, Concannon
was stabbed In the abdomen with q knife, and
nom the effects of the wound died the next day.
The Coroner and DR.. Shapleigh, who made the
post moTtenl examination, were the only wit
nesses examined up to the hour our report
closed. The Doctor testified to the character of
the wound and that it was the cause of death.
District Attorney Mann for Commonwealth; G..
Rem ak Tor defendant.
ACTION AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF wAR-DA
MAGEs LAID AT ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOL
LARS.
SUPREME CoURT-Chambers Before Judge
Sutherland-Joseph H. Maddox VS.. Edwin NJ.
Stanton. The arrests by military process, now
that the war is over, are causing somewhat of
stir in our civil courts. The present action may
be considered a test as 10 the liability of Co
yernment officers for any arbitrary measures
that may have been exercised during the pro-
gress of the war.
In the suit about to be tried, the facts, accord
ing to the complaint and answer, are as follows:-
On or about the 18th of April, 1864, Mr. Joseph
III. Maddox was al rested in Baltimore, by order
of the Secretary of War. The charges alleged
against him were that ne, IN company with NJ.
E. Martin and j. F. Manahan, held unlawful IN
tercourse with the Rebels, in the transportation
OF goods, Illicit correspondence etc. written
evidences being shown to prove the fact
That on those charges he was confined at
Camp Hamilton, Fortress Monroe, until the Sth
OF June following, and again arrested on the
10th of March, 1865 being this time confined
some ninety-nine days. Piaintltf was arrested on
these occasions under the name of James Brown.
While thus confined he alleges that large guam
tity OF tobacco belonging to hlm ana placed at
Fredericksburg, Virginia, for safe keeping, was
destroyed by orders of the defendant.
1t is also alleged in the complaint that he re-
ceived permission from President Lincoln TO
purchase this tobacco in Richmond, aud that he
was acting solely under executive authority. He
claims that in consequence of the sudden and
unlawful seizure of his person, being prevented
from having intercourse with friends and coun-
sci, he has been materially injured both fnan
cially and physically, and seeks for damages TO
the amount of one hundred thousand dollars.
Secretary Stanton, in his answer, says that he
is not a resident of the city of New York, but Of
Washington, d. c.. That the plaintiff was arrested
for violation of the Articles of War; Sand was
afterwards discharged on parole after giving
proper security for his appearance when re-
existed, and Baltimore was under martial law,
and that plaintiff was taken in custody by the
Provost Marshal of that city, and not by any
command of the respondent.
The case came up in Court yesterday on
motion of eX-Judge CoWles to strike out the
whole or portion of the answer.
EX.Judge .Pierpont on the part of the Secre.
tarv of War, opposed the motion.
The points OF law governing this branch of the
subject were argued at some length.
Judge Sutherland reserved his decision.
While Secretary Stanton was in this city some
months since a process was served upon him
which brought the case before our Courts,--N
y Herald