Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-10-18

and appointed by the Court for the first thing yes
terday, were delivered at the time appointed.
The argument was first opened by Julius W
Wright, Esq. on the part of the defence, who ad
dressed the Jury for more than half an hour upon
the evidence and the conclusions to be drawn
from it to which the prisoner was entitled. He
knew of the strong prejudices existing against
the prisoner that his trial and condemnation
were 80 intimately connected in the public mind,
that the latter was as consequence expected
to follow his arraignment. The subject had been
canvassed and discussed, and the prisoner pre-
Judged. The weight of the responsibility as coun-
sci to the prisoner appreciated and felt by
him. But this trial all depended upon circumstan-
tial evidence, and the jury were to weigh 1t well.
A review of the testimony was then entered into
by the counsel, and those points particularly dwelt
upon where the links in the chain OF circumstances
appeared least distinct and clearly marked. This
argument consumed as we have said, probably
more than half an hour.
Mr.. Wright was followed by the Solicitor for the
State, John L. Holmes, Esq. who, in behalf OF the
prosecution, proceeded to deliver his argument to
the jury With all due apparent solemni.y, the
Solicitor entered upon this case. He detailed to
the jury how that when the bill was first found
against the prisoner, he being poor, the Court in
it of Justice assigned him counsel; experienced
and with locks grown gray in the service OF his
profession, and the other, the gentleman who had
just spoken. The responsibility of the jury, they
were told, was great. But however painful it
might be to consign to the gallows afellow-being,
yet they must recoect that not only are they vim
dicating innocence, but the great majesty OF the
law which law, fairly administered, secures to US
IL. IL
which law eocietywould be in state of anarchy
and blood would flow in our streets, and property
be unsafe On that fatal Sunday in
March, 1863, no would to God that the
steps OF the prisoner had been heavenward
instead of hellward. But most brutal murder
had been committed, and the chain of circum-
stances which leads to the track of and death
blow inflicted by, the prisoner was 80 linked and
fitted as to leave no difficulty in the way of the
jury beginning at the commencement and going
on and enabling them to convict the prisoner
without any rational doubt of his guilt. he case
had boon a long and tedious one, but however te-
dious it may be, they should weigh the testimony
we'll and give the prisoner every benefit OF that
testimony they could possibly find. 1t was laid
down as proposition Of law that if Runciman,
Parker and Dnnn were at Mrs. Macumber's house
if the jury believed they enticed him out to COM
NIT the felony, and his life taken, if they be-
lieve this, it matters not if Runcman gave the
death blow, for if Parker aiding and assisting,
Parker would be as guilty. Another proposition
Of law laid down is that malice accompanied with
purpose amounts to killing. And possession of
the fruits of crime recently after its commission
is prinad tdcie evidence OF guilty possess ion, and
oil INV Wiz =
tending circumstances, or the habits and charac-
Of the possessor, it is taken as conclusive. The
ruling of this principle is not confined to cases of
theft, but is applied to all cases of crime. The
Solicitor then proceeded with lengthy review of
the testimony, and concluded his argument, the
whole time thus occupied being about hour
and half.
Hon Hugh Waddell, for the defence, then de-
livered the closing argument. This argument
was of very great length, consuming at least two
hours in its delivery. Forcible and clear, it was
powerful regards legal points, ard was logi-
cal discussion of no mean character. We cannot
begin to do justice to it, and would fail in attempt
ing synopsis with our limited space. Conceding
almost everything the State claimed, he built up
an argument on the leading points in the testi-
mony, and so well applied to it the best of legal
tainly could not have had other than telling in
fuence on the jury. He conceded Parker's pres
ence at the house of Mrs Macumber, and his de-
p4rture with ChiIdrees and Runciman when
Childress was last seen alive This was as far as
the facts went; upon this the presumption was
built the inference drawn that Childress was
murdered, and that he was enticed there for the
purpose of staying him, but upon this presump-
ton the jury could not elevate another presump-
ton that Parker did the deed or that he was &C
cessory to the act. They had made one pre-
sumption, and the law forbids another on top
Of this. Another strong point made:
It given as the opinion of one of the most
learned sons of North Carolina, one of the most
eminent jurists who ever sat upon the Supreme
Court Bench, Judge CASTOR, that unless this cir
cumstantial evidence was as clear and plain the
positive testimony of respectable and credible
witness, the duty of the jury to acquit These
two points were forcibly urged upon the jury, as
also the fact that Runciman was the one seen in
possession of the watch, the money and the
British protection papers said to belong to Child
ress. We state these points of the argument, but
it is not to be tax en- for granted that no others
were made. Numerous others, equally as strong,
were laid down and clearly defined to the jury
but we feel thai we would not do the gentleman
justice in protesting to report his argument in
any attempt we might make, unless the same had
been taken UeT6atine, which, owing to its extreme
length, impractcabIe Never have we list
ened with more pleasure and greater interest at
any similar attempt.
An assigned counsel, and unpaid as he was,
this gentleman's efforts in the prisoners behalf
were most laudabe, and he could not have laborod
harder had he been the best paid in the world.
e After the close Of the argument His Honor pro-
ceeded to charge the jury with the law bearing
upon the case, to review the testimony, and to
show them the application Of the law, and instruct
them in their duty in reconcilng it with the facts
The charge was lengthy and able, and enlightened
the jury in no little degree.
The jury then retired, and after remaining abb
sent some time were ushered into the Court Room.
and returned verdict of GUILTY. This verdict
was returned but not recorded, being suspended.
owing to the fact Of motion being made by the
counsel for the prisoner for a new trial. The
ground for this motion not stated, but which
the counsel said he would state on Monday. The
case stands just 80. 1t remains with His Honor
whether or not new trial will be granted.