Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-07-27

ties in support Of bis views and read from Is
Bishop on Criminal Law t3d edition) section COL
New York or any other place and aided the
conspiracy in any way, he was prime In
the first degree. He read from Wnarson's
Criminal Law, pare 81, Qaier editions page
engage in conspiracy against the public
peace, and death ensues by the act Of one, his
act is the act Of all II men engage In DANGER
Gus riots OF conspiracies they are Oh guilty OF
quence ct such conspiracy: Every man
proved to be involved in this conspiracy
was gully OF the acts of the prime pal II a
conspiracy, and all those VINO engage in it are
guilty. A conspiracy 10 formed to strike the
head of the nation, aad every man who en-
gases in it, whether present or not, eh ,res the
He had, however, some other autnori.
ties, and would fgnt the counsel on
their own ground-English law-reading
where q similar principle is laid down. He
read from LIST Peters Supreme Court Reports,
page 1853, which refers to case In 18th Whea-
ton, page 64S, to show that whatever Is done
by an agent in an unlawful enterprise makes
the principal responsible. II the agent com.
mits murder in the prosecution Of the unlaw.
full enterprise, then the principal is guilty
Booth originates q conspiracy, and the pris;
shot is fired; the act Of Booth was his act
The Supreme Court had decided this principle,
and he referred to the case OF Gooding In
Wheaton, as and 469, when the same point
would undertake further to show that this
principle had been enunciated by that great
good man, Chief Justice Marshall, in the Burr
case. oath Oranch and Coombs Compendium
He held that when war was levied, however
far the party might be, he was guilty Of being
traitor. He maintained that this principle
was applicable to the crime Of murder as we'll
Mr. Darlington referred to the argument OF
Mr.. Merrick yesterday, In which he asked ii
this was charge of treason. He would say
treason was question for the Court. He had
given aid and comfort to the enemy, and for
money han conspred not only against the life
OF the beloved President, but the life of the
had committed the crime Of murder, and they
prove the higher crime to aid the Jury in
estimating the latter crime. The man who
struck at the life Of the commander-in.ch chief
was traitor. By the decision of Chief JUS
tice Marshal II he was constructively present.
then he is guilty.
In support OF the second proposition he re-
ferred to LIST Russell IS, where it is held that an
individual who recklessly engages in viola
ton Of the law and kills a man, is guilty Of
murder. What is true in regard to a single
individual Is so in regard to all so engaged.
Referring to Wharton, Mr.. e. cited the case
OF number OF persons in riot, and one kills
man. The act is the act of all. and the Of
tense is murder or manslaughter, according to
q
20 to his house and seek to abducs him and he
Is killed. where is the jury who would not
convict! When in the midst OF war men COM
hine to GO to the house OF the President Of the
United States and abduct him, whom many OF
the South had learned to love, the inevitable
result OF which act would be bloodshed, they
were all guilty. He was sorry to near his
friend Mr. Bradley say that to kill him INT
bond, and he hoped he did not intend to re.
iterate the sentiment of Anna Surratt. Why
the very rebel dead, ii such q wretch was
the representative OF the lost cause would turn
in their graves. Oh no, it was no more than
Abraham Lincoln boast oft TO French Ca
nadlans and Engltshmen, the avowed enemies
OF my country This argument might be said
TO apply to ALL No. not to ALL he was not a bel
ligerent. There was great difference between
treason and treachery. He could nndersta Id
how man born and raised In the South could
be pers uaded to tight against this government;
but he could not understand how man living
here under the shadows OF the capitol could
enter into such treacherous conspiracy as
this.
He next spoke OF the third proposition briefly,
and went on to the fourth proposition, refer
ring to 9th Pickering, page 400, and Roscoe's
Criminal Evidence, page 230. Assuming that
he was in Washington, as he claimed he had
proved oy thirteen witnesses, it was legal
presumption, in the absence OF satisfactory
proof, to show that he was here for another
purpose; that he was here to perform his part
IN 'he eonsprasy The burden Of
that he was in the conspiracy. and it was tor
the accused to show hat he had repented and
retired from the conspiracy. He had been
sins with faith and confession He never re-
pented or confessed except when across the
ocean and safe. as hesupposed, when he boast.
ed Of his connection with 1t.
Mr.. Carrngton here concluded the argument
on legal points, and with the unde rstlnding
that he will argue the case on the evidence
before the jury on Monday, the Court took q
recess until Monday morning.
STKALIHG.-I Yesterday, Daniel Kramer, who
had been arrested by county officer Allen, was
before Justice Martin on the charge of having
stolen cow belonging to Mrs. Straub, In the
county. After the witnesses for the prosecu.
ton had been heard, Mr.. N. H. Miller, for the
accused, made statement, which the Justice
said he could not receive unless accompanied
by proof, and informed Mr. M that the caso
was open. Mr.. Miller advised his client that
Justice Martin had no right to hold him. and
told MIN to leave the Office, when the Justice
ordered MI. Allen to take him In custody. Mr..
M left the office, saying that he would apply
for writ Of habeas corpus, and Kramer was
held to bail tor his appearance at court.
Mr.. Miller subseq uently applied to Chief
Justice Cartier TOR writ Of hdbeas corpus in
his application, setting that the accused had
been arrested by officer Allen without author
ity OF law, and was wrongfully held He said
that, to test the right Of the officer to hold him.
stated
the charge was only to get money from the
prisoner, who had exchanged cow with q
woman. who now is dissatisfied. and wishes to
get the cow back, or her full value. He said
also thai the manner business Is done in some
offices should be ventilated.
The Court said, however desirable it was to
examine the methods OF proceeding in some OF
the Justices' courts, II could not interfere In
This case; and whatever right the Off Ger NAV
have had to arrest the man. he was now in his
custody as deputy of Justice Martin. aud the
latter could deputse any person, officer or not,
to have that custody. The application was
refused.
ORPHANS Court, Judge eH-To. day,
an exemplined copy Of the will of the late w :.
W. Taylor. of Baltimore, was exhibited and ad :
mitted 10 probate.
The will OF the late J. Letitia Speake, of the
city OF Washington. d. c., deceased, was flied
executor, Erasm as I. Middleton. D' Is nsf
Abraham Wychoff was q ualified as executor
Of Samuel Tllson. late Of Washington 10. o..
deceased: bond, &sO,GO0
Letters testamentary were issued to Sarah
OF washington, ID. o., deceased-bond $4,000:
to Nathaniel b. N yers, on the personal estate
OF Martha M. Myers, deceased-bond $500: to
Joseph 6aylor. upon the personal estate of
James Cronan, deceased-b0nd &4OO
The first and final accounts OF the admins.
traitor OF X. Il. Campbell, deceased; the first
and final account OF the administrat or OF r. II.
Marlock. deceased; and the second account Of
the guardian OF the orphans OF John Henry
passed
The answer OF H. K. Brown, executor of the
estate OF Richard Bustee, to the petition of
Helen X. Reed, was presented and read. Nv
oroer OF the court the demurrer was over.
swer.
In re Mary Ann Pearson. An answer to the