The national Republican., 1868-12-05

..A
M; Sook, cooperation attorney, maintained
lstlop 70 the question OF boundary.
the defence, oontended that when original ey-
depend upon Or receive hesrsay testimony.
Justice Walter ruled that ss the proper au-
.sSs to ss. Sa ns n city
rely upon oral testimony. .r.
Mr.. Cook requested the justice to put his
'Hs MIN II nf; Miller, for the defence, objected,
hoping that the time OF the court would not
be thus consumed.
MT; Cook demanded that the ruling b., re.
evidence to substantiate every position the
counsel for the prosecution had assumed.
MT mils ehshlsnSs the gentleman to
MT. Cook. I desplse alike tho sentlemsn's
challenge and the gentleman himself. Ia II
MT N Miller ". as;,pi,s the ssn'lensns posi-
Justice wsiter, I have made the ruling
SSGs s i,S u.SgS MSS, a9Tss there TO ws: "a:
such q street within the city as First streetf'
The counsel for the defence protested against
sf9SaS To Sro%s a.
drawing Mayor Bowen from the stand.
By Mr. GUc sss Ss was assa ss S1sc .nT
fhe counsel for the defence objected, and a
contended By the defence that proof should be
produced who was surveyor, and BY Whist au.
thority he was acting as suehj that Mr.. Bliss
before he could be acknowledged AZ city sur
Nj. Cook replied that 1t was well known to
BY what mode he was elected 10 that once.
The counsel for defence then yielded tho
point admitting that Bills. was city surveyor,
bat denied that he was the custodian OF the
records offered In evidence, and OF which he
claimed to have control.
Mr.. Cook offered to prove that he was the
the dsfencS appealed 10 the % Justice R % for his de-
cision. ."--..--r.r.
The Court permitted Mr.. Cook to proceed
that about two weeks ago he visited that sec.
tion OF the city where ~ was proposed to lay
the railroad track, and defined tho grade Of
MI. Cook Were there any excavations on
First and streetsi
| Defence obleoled to thi. mode Of exsmins:
be shown as connected with those excavations
| or they could not Affect him. There probably
are ditches and gulley. on street. but let the
| them. We want to know whst we have to
statement OF all the holes or ditehes that may
tempted to be inculpsted. -.. 49,.
Mf. Cook replied: II the counsel for defend.
ant win be patient we viii show that the ae.
The defence still objecting, the witness was
| Withdrawn and NIT. Crane, commissioner OF
the Fourth ward, was produced and sworn,
| Noyember he found number of men digging
foreman, who Informed witness that he Muir.
rayl had given orders to dig up.
Counsel for defence here interposed an OBJ
lection to the witness going on, but after a
lengthy diseu,sion the Court permitted Mr.
saying that Mr.. Murray. stated that he did
not know that he was violating the law. Wit
ness said there was trench Dug on each side
vent travelling across the street.
On ncross.examination,t the witness was asked
to give the language used by him to Mr.. Muir.
r' "qS 6rs sss li'tsii .sid !'PK Murray am sur.
R,,sda e nd q, you a,Sslpg Ep thS streets
piled that he did not know II was illegal,
and witness told him he must do no more
work there. Murray then said he would do
more work ths,s qSie.. S
dirt carried back to nll up the trenches.
Counsel for the prosecution objected to
that Mr.. Crane should not testify to the In.
tentions of Mr.. Murray.
The decision Of the Justice was then In.
as 70 the on M
MIR. C.) could relate the conversation held be.
tween himself and Mr.. Murray, and 1t could be
lSr Ss Tns 4 might re wS,h ,,or (:
did not know he had violated a city law, said
he should go to baltimore to receive instruc'
M taS nsSsa
he would do no more work without the per
mission OF the Mayor, which he (witness) con
Of % murray, % that 6 he was sSins The work We done
and stated that himself and a squad of ner
foSSa fSSsfsfi large number OF men e|pioyed
trenches, with Mr.. Murray acting as foreman
They were taken Ia custody, and conducted Il
the Fourth ward station-ho use, upon awarrnn
charging them with violation OF corporation
Mi. Donegan testified that william Murrs,
,G stsa aU
It was q violation Of law. He regarded thu
damage donc to this street as material, inas
vehicles to pass along there without groa
caution. This opinion was also concurred Il
by Mr.. Crane, who was recalled and questioned
'eFSs TSs sRiasas. M s5. slo,sd when Mr. Cook
. asked for an adjournment, Ia, order to obtsjr
additional authority which he proposed, Y
to the Justice for ggidsnoe In his decision.
The counsel for the defence deferred to ,snI
such course. 1t had not been shown that
The svS case i be aism,ssed. For themselves they
were PStise,ly y,Sahf SSilifps tS sSsP!s the "a''e
Mr.. Cook renewed his motion, and asseltes
that at any rates, whether thsn or some Other
time, II was his purpose to argue the case, ant
1t was also the purpose OF his colleagues 70
Justice Walker then iutimsted that he wai
prepared to hear tIe argument and the ooun'
MT. Cook therefore, al 1880 O'Clock, ADDRESSED
oontended that tho fact that the defendan
was superintending the work made hip .
party to the digging up the street hs II no ha'
actually been engaged In the manual labor o
Ss Tt1S Rsf soth saa 'RsdM pa bonsasa M ss9
! to Mr.. Bliss that he had dug the trenches, AM
2 the position taken by the defence that unles
: we show him with spade In hand shovellinf
: dirt he mustgo acquitted 10 Inconsistent viii
!; quired 1t Is furnished by Mr.. Mufray's admis
sions.
I Besides, It Is the rule OF law that the prlnei
pal 10 responsible for the acts OF his agent ant
In support OF his position Mr.. Cook read iron
that where a nuisance 10 created both the per
sons who created II and the persons who con
:. tinued 1t are liable to Indictment, and apply
~ 10 ia n nS Sf sSs &
0 trenches by his own hands, and thereby be
!. come the creator Of the nuisance, he did con
n tinue the nuisance, and for such continuance
: is just as guilty as though he had created y
: defence of the master to prove that the nui
{ sanoe was created by another II II WAS main
d tained by his (the master'sl authority, an,
. that the employer 81 men anu ,he director
: as well as ciyilly. Mr.. Cook also read author
n ity showing that when wrong 10 committee
Q by an agent, ifit 10 done by the director or th
Mr Leach SeSsea 'e leave fGSsi 70 interrupt an,
. | asked the counsel to state whether all the au
0 thorlty he has read from do not apply exclu