Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-08-29
LOCAL NEWS.

II. w W. mCOIedIy, WHICH was
commenced and occupied five hours yester-
day. As on yesterday, the prosecution was
represented by Mr.. Albert N. Seip and the de-
tense by Messrs. Cook and Burgess. The ex-
animation attracted even more attention than
1t dad yesterday, and the office was crowded
considerably before the hour set for trial.
The first witness called was Colonel Stewart,
OF the Pennsylvania State agency, who was
sworn for the defense, and testified that he
knew the accused several years as q practicing
physician in Pittsburg, Pa, where he bore an
excellent character.
On cross-eXamindtiOn, witness said that he
lad known the accused in this city, and never
heard anything against his character.
Mrs Weues testified that she visited Ellen
when she was sick, and heard her exclaim,
-. Lord, wish was dead" She appeared
as if she needed attention. =
On cross-examlnation. witness said that
Ellen seemed to be afraid that her brothAr
would be angry because she lett the house
The evidence here closed, ana Mr. Cook
argued the case for the defense stating that mis-
man of good repute. He claimed that the
accused could not be held for court. He re-
ferred to the fact that in the desire of the
influence operating unconsciously on his mind
towards sending the case up. He asked il
there was evidence tending to satisfy the mind
and attempted rape on the I4th. He read from
the affdavit as published in the Stars reports,
and read from Deans Medical Jurisprudence
that the accusation is easy to be made, harder
to be proved, and harder yet to be defended
He also read from Wharton's Criminal Law
and Russell on Crimes, rs TO the proof req uired.
What is the charge, and how Is it sustained!
1t Is charged that while under the influence OF
opiates the act was committed. Ii the opiates
Aad their effect upon her where was her mind,
Was her brain clear! DR.. Thompson said that
the minds Of females the hall fluctuations such
as would be the ground work for such charge
as this. Has 1t come to this that when a wit.
ness is spell bound by opiates, she is to be al.
lowed to swear TO such statements as she had
and abuse the reputation Of man heretofore
spotless. except that he would sometimes take
the intoxicating cup. 1t cannot be that this
modest little girl could, under the influence of
opiates, be ravished. What is the evidence?
she testifies that on Tuesday he bit her, kissed
h hs' s soo she says fS. mat s he only touched
W as no rape. That touch, if d took place NAV
have been an offence; a moral wrong NAV have
been omitted, but 1t was not the crime al
legged MIR. Cook proceeded to urge the i'm
probability that the act was committed then
or afterwards, or that il could be done in the
position occupied by the girl in the bed, as
resumed 10 by her He argued that either she
had not taken the opIates. or that her state.
Inents as 10 the minutia We're not true Mr.
Cook eierred TO the evidence as reported, and
proceeded to read that she went to the wife of
the accused and stated that she was in the
family
Mr. Seip said this was not correct: that she
Aad not SO testified, and asked that the state
rnenu be corrected.
Fir. Cook read the evidence a little further
where she stated that she was afraid she was
N the family way: and said she was AFRAID
mat he did 1t while she was asleep. He con.
tended that her narrative was CONTRADICTORY
and was based on hallucnations. He called
attention to the fact that in her affidavit she
SAID that the accused gave her opiates during
the day, and In her testimony that he did not
see her until Wednesday night and referred
also 10 the evidence OF the little child which
coDiradicts the testimony of prosecuting
witness, as to not having sent for the doctor to
come 10 see her Ii the statement of one is
true, the other is untrue, and which is most
likely to be mistaken; the little, unsophis,icar.
ed girl, or the girl under the influence of
opiates! Her testimony is not only uncoi rob-
GRATED but is in itself contradictory, and he
proceeded 20 dissect IL at some length.
Mr. Cook spoke OF the character of the &C.
cused, and related the circumstances of the
girl being SICK and her removal TO the house of
the accused, where she was treated as the
feelings of benevolence dictated. He asked if
1t were possible, under the evidence, to COM
nit the accused on the testimony. II there
was anything done by this man it was not q
rape, nor an assault with intent to commit
Tape, but an as anit to induce improper con-
nection. He denied that there was evidence
TO hold him on the charge preferred. a brother
appears with his sister as the prosecutrix, he
as the attorney. He would have been pleased
20 see the witness beyond the influence Of the
brother and his wife. He closed, claiming that
the accused could not be convicted ultimately,
and that society would not suffer il the ac-
cused was not held TO bail.
Mr. Seip, (brother OF the complainant.) for
ne prosec ution, made the closing argument
He remarked that after the storm comes the
calm, and that he intended only TO briefly re
Gle the TAGS Of the case: He alluded to tn
fac, that his family was absen. he having sen
his wife to a more coDgenial cline on accoun
of her health, on the advice OF Dr. THOMPSON
and he did not leave his sister (tne prosecuting
witness) In the house unprovided for, as had
been charged. As to the accused having been
IN the army. he would say that he 1.-THE speaker)
was also IN the army, and In the same regi-
rnent in which the accused was an off Ger, and
Iecollects that he was suspended for drunken
ness He belonged to the same church that
the accused belonged TO, and the little boys Of
the accused were in the class OF the speaker.
He also said that the accused belonged, or pre-
tended to belong, TO the same society or ira
ternity. So much for their relations, and he
W1sneo 70 state mat TOR justice alone had this
case mad been brought 1t now remained for
him to demonstrate that the facts alleged were
true, but before doing 80 he asked why
should the accused hesitate 10 have the case
go up to higher court, He must have some
other motive behind besides his conscious in.
nocence; and he thought that he knew il, but
1t was not proper for him TO aliude TO it. II
che defendant has the good character alleged
he could give bail, but he (Mr. Seip) wished
the case 10 go up to court, where he expected
doubt; and IL he was not able 70 dc SO with
certainty, he did not wish to do il at all
He referred TO the affidavit OF the prosecuting
witness, and claimed II she objected to going
from the house, then the first charge IN the ar
fidavit, "that she was taken" TO the house, is
true the second, "op,ates were administered"
g oASS SonSAuotVcly proven Oy MS own aQmle.
slons. he then referred TO the third charge OF
rape, and spoke or his sister having come here
ST his request that he might educate her, and
mat since she arrived on May LIST she had made
the acquaintance OF no one Of the opposite
sex unless two or three At Sunday School He
admitted that the prisoners wife had been
xnd TO him and his family, an d he felt for her,
but as for him (tne prisoner) vengeance must
visit him Tor the terrible crime upon him He
denied that the credibility Of the prosecutrix
was impaired; and referred to the testimony
(NAnI4in WpbfAa mir
the character Of the girl, and asked IL the
charges Were not true. what motive could she
have had to come before such an assemblsge
as was present. and make the statement. What
IS II for any woman, even the aged, TO come
before crowd gathered by idle curiosity
1t was true that she gave her testimony while
seated between himself and his wife, but it
was under the direct eye Of the Court, who
saw that she was SO seated that thew might
the prosecutrix, Miss Kelly and others, and
spoke Of the removal OF the little bows from
the room al fact against the acc used and ana
LIED the testimony OF the little elrI Lizzie
McCreary.) whose testimony he objected to-
saying that 1t was tmpossible for q girl OF that
age eight years) TO have laid wake two nigh "a
and day as had been testified. He further
spoke of the evidence Of this child, who he
coAtended was mistaken in her testimony
OF the accused 10 Capt. Welles, which were
what none but very devil could have made
and were damning preols against him.
IL reply 10 the question as to how he Mr..
Seip1 came 10 be In the case he stated that he
was her brother, and asked in whom could she
Eeiy II not her brother, but he would pr omise
that when the time comes more able person