The national Republican., 1867-07-19


were whothsr they were originals or copies;
think they were copies of duplicates. Think
Roberts said the originals were In q secure
piscsg y = , q q Y 4 ii I
james b. Bingham, Of Memphis was sworn for
the defence. I have known Mr. Tomeny for
several years. Havo never heard Mr.. Tomsny's
integrity called In question:. Was In Mobile in
Heard Of his general reputation for truth and
veracity as very unfavorable. Have been friendly
with Mr. Tomeny, and then again the reverse.
Cross.oxamined. have boon editor Of the
Memphis Bulletin; was editor from 1861 until q
short time ago. Did not come here with Mr..
Tomeny; did not wish his influence for myself;
do not wish to be register Of bankruptcy.
position Of register Of Bankruptcy In Memphis Ia
a radical, and--a very rare thing gentleman.
Tho defence, after stating that they had some
papers 10 offer impoaching the veraoity Of Mr..
Roberto, but which they did not think necessary
to offer, closed their case
The court took q recess Of fifteen minutes.
Afer the recess, Mr. Tomiinson, witness for
the defence. desired to make somo corrections.
which was granted.
The correction was AZ follows: He was In the
office at Me ,phis in 1854 left there for yicks.
burg 10 1865; left In June, 1865, for New York
left New York for Mobile in November, 1865;
leaving the latter place In March, 1865, for New
York city.
Senator Fowler was sworn for the defence and
examined by Mr.. Lssoh: lie said Mr. Tomeny' q
character was good he bad never heard any.
thing alleged against him before this.
Judge Saffold. for the prosecution, rose and
said that this was prosecution for commitment
before tho justice on tho charge Of having insti.
gated tho larceny OF goods and chattles, the
property Of Edwin d. Roberts, at WillardS'
Hotel, on or about june, 1866. Tho counsel
said he wished, In tho first place, to speak Of the
jurisdiction the court here had over the case. In
n principle Of common law, II was truth that
States are countries. That doctrine received Its
original construction from independent sovereign.
ties-as, for instance, England and France that
the penal laws Of one State will not recognize
those Of any other.
The law has, however, undergone modification
The preparing Of libel In Ireland and writing
Of 1t In England. gave England jurisdiction Of
the case.
Ho quoted references to show that ho who
committed IN offence through an innocent agent
was the principal himself. In misdemeanors all
arc principals Modern law has abolished all
accessories before the facts.
The question In this case Is whether the laws
Of the District Of Columbia have been infraC ed.
1t Is maintained, without doubt, that the offence
was committed, completed and consummated
here. II Is, therefore, plain that within this
locality the accessory shall be seized and tried
hero. Whatever one consplrator docs in one
locality Is snid to be the act Of tho other.
Though man wore to send an idiot from Ala
bama to Willards' Hotel to poison all the guests
yet, by the construction Of the law, ho is here
bat whether done by q sane individual, n re.
b ponsible or irresponsible person, yet the case
applies equally as we'll.
The counsel quoted the United States vs. Good.
ing in support Of his argument. Mr.. safold said
that Mr.. Tomeny was a citizen Of Tennessee, and
he did not actually know how far this question
of jurisdiction would go.
Mr.. Saffold quoted extracts from the Star In
which he said the account was published o few
days after tho hearing. In all due Justice to the
reporters Of the press, who were generally very
accurate, yet this account he would say did no
.1justice to the prisoner. lie spoke Of ono Rock.
we'll. who had a conyer.=tion with Tomeny in
Mobile, in which Rockwell said that he would
like to injure Roberts. Tomeny told him he
could pjure him by getting some papers from
him, and II he got those papers from him he
would be pad we'll for them. Tomeny met Rock
well some days afterward, and spoke to him
again about IL; but, for some reason not de-
tailed, tho crimo was not consummated. The
parties all came to New York finally, and money
was obtained by Ruter, Rockwell, Webb, and
others, on Tomeny's credit to carry out tho
larceny Of the papers.
The counsel followed tho abstraction Of the pa.
pers from Washington, through New Jersey, and
to New York, in the hands Of these men, en-.
deavoring to show the complicity Of MI, Tomeny
with them. The counsel claimed that the mate
rial facts connected with the case were fully
corroborated.
The committing magistrate was not called
upon, however, to decide upon the facts, but
when the offence was committed. The bad char
acter of the witness has but little In connection
with III though it might be presumptive even to
IL IT,. An tknnn tkara
sufficient grounds to send the matter forward for
further Investigation.
Mr.. Cox said his time would limit him to a few
remarks. He wished to speak Of the credibilty
Of tho witnesses In the case. Those who had tos-
titled In favor Of the accused, were all persons
Of the highest respcctability. Mr.. Tomeny had
disbursed millions Of money, and had never
been found In error even to fraction. The pa
ties who brought this charge were there, who
had been living In enmity with him. and in sap
port Of his charges, had brought to sustain him.
q man who had been living In infamy, who had
confessed II, and who was known to be per-
jurer. It has been said that there has been cor
roborative evidence with the accusation. 1t
docs not follow that though the truth has acci-
dentaily been told In some minor points, that
completely Is established. The question Is, where
the larceny was committed. According to tho
testimony Of the witness, Carpenter, tho theft
was to have been committed at the Battle House
in Mobile. There was nothing said about Wash.
ington. Mr. romeny came on to Washington
without Carpenters knowledge. Carpenter was
surprised to hear Of his being hero.
Who're then Is the evidence that proves Mr..
Tomeny guilty Of entering the room at Willards'
Hotel or even fading him giving any money to
4 third party for that purpose. mere conjec.
ture Is ALL there Is no legal proof TO establish
the case. What was Carpenter instisAied to
steail Was 1t postage stamps7 wasit money?
Or, what wns II? Larceny must be committed
for the use Of converting the property to the use
Of the thief 1t has been said by tho opposite
counsel that a party Is responsible for that
which be may advise. But We dispute II, quoting
First Russell on Crime. page 81.
The absurdities Of the common law have been
argued upon by the opposite counsel, but trust
that you will act upon this case according to the
common law II was held at one time that a
party shot In one country, and dying in another
tho accused could not bo convicted Of murder
but the common law rsmedied that and made II
SO that the trial could be held and Justice rem
dered In either Of the countries.
Mr.. Coz quoted the act Of George ~.
He also quoted from lst Comstook, page 207, to
show that Carpenter was the principal and
Tomsny but an accessory before the fact, II ab.
sent, which 1t Is proved that he was. The Court
could not take Jurisdiction Of Tomeny II out Of
the State, which he was, and Carpenter was the
guilty party. The indictment did not charge
Tomspy with the larcenyi II merely charged him