New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-03-14

an cases ,e Inv prSof Of facts from which the Jury
may fairly imply IT. II usual 70 pceIn IN degree OF in
tmacy existed between them or to show Of any
ing toEethcp or nrivae meeting between hen there U.s.
tSen strong foundation the evidence 70 c of The
de@fSmdshsts in f%rtherancc Of the common design
Now, page 62 he lays down .no n this subject IT,
roi wh@rcyer writing or words OF any Oh tnr p't,vs
charged with or implicated III dooe IN arhcrancc Of tho
common design il is admissible IN evidence o y to
G PARTY n%Ss , SSt Conspiracy Ss prDU ITSELF
Twill refer your lOnors 10 "a $1,000 ia ~ r,is i.id
onward, in which the cases are eoN'o''' ""' ''0
now If your please in great many matters
r obliged from the nature OF things, to take evidence
Of facts and let the jury and let Tue Court lei MhI
ration than one Of most ordinary occurrence ana Win
which every lawyer and judge is familiar go. -,
You are sitting here with a jury, TO Try case OF
divorce and a man trial accused by his wife OF IN
hdey Well you e9nnOt EXPECT 10 Rrpvo nav vns @
do these things In tho open street IN the very nature vi
the case is crime committed IN secrecy u. wnea
one in the OF harlo that he went the way 10 her
house in the twilight o evening re or honor would
tell the jury that they are to INFER WHAT he went 10 tat
csh indge said to the jury Gentlemen. do not 90
these houses for the purpose OF saying the p''cr
Suppose after you had proved he had gone to the
house, you should bring the woman on the stand anu
was wrong; we we're familiar and pleasant. and had an
agreeable evening and night spent IN proper IA
tOn and wrong whatever. ana he came AGAIN 'ne
next week, and 1t spent properly, no Wrong anu ~
crime We Would not your vnU 10 saT what Won think
about IT, when is found under these
really did follow from these acts" and your honors
| would allow the evidence TO go to the jury.
Now in the of the United States against Manner,
Attn Wendell $50, which will not trouble your llonors
by reading is laid down that You may present the acts
and the dSns as 70 s Says done e
though in the Card case, II is mol necessary 10 PVe
that these parties together and talked over any
more than II Is necessary 10 proEe, III @ & ~
what done. You prove the facts ana you eiIe 10
And the head notes in these words "The fact OF con-
spring need not he proved If the parties concur in dong
the act although they were not previously aequah'eu
| now come to the consideration Of the question
whether sufficient foundation has been LAID by te intro
duction OF prid dcie evidence Of conspiracy 10 warrant
the Introduction OF the acts writings aud declarations
coming to consideration of this question to relieve
ourselves of the idea that we are here upon trial IN an
between man aud another The rules that are 10
guide us are rules OF law which have been laid down
by Courts established precedents in criminal trials
in conspiracy cases These rules OF lay nIopIe rfy
proven, and how the facts proven lit INTO
| these rules OF law. . ... -.
conspiracy case IL 10 necessary to prove some fact
tending TO show that has been conspiracy before
any evidence can be given OF the declarations OF Cocoon
| Now presume the Court will have no hesitation in
saying that the fact that there IS SEPARATION III S a a
evidence which would properly be gwen bearing upon
|
The Court-It is quite unnecessary to spend any time
upon that proposition. to elucidate it, or to give app
| cation. Whatever evidence would he proper Ia a1ect
this defendant, all tried together Is competent
| now. .,-,. ... , =. J., q, ,,,o
Now what OF evidence is necessary TO prove WDa
Jdcie conspiracy | have already called Your Honor
attention this case called the Card case. which Chief
Justice Savage cites and goes on further TO state That
the circumstances shown in the ease before INN were sur
nclent TO Justify the finding "An actual conspiracy can
seldom bo proved except by circumstances The Card
case cited in COwcn, 4i9 and reported originally III
. q y.
ChefJustice Pratt presided at the trial The case on
Parsons which tired by Lord Mansfield and reported
William Blackstone very remarkable case OF con
spiracy. 1t that then excited great interest
IN London and since that time the same Kind OF thing
has appeared in country. 1t was a case Of
sprituasm, in which the parties were indicted Tor con
With spirits in the other world 1t is a particularly
Interesting the later developments of the age IN which
| we 1--we. Lord Mansfield SAID upon that trial
Its not necessary TO prove the aorna fact OF con
spacy, but may be collected from collateral crcnln
OF the fact by consultations fOrhe purpose but more
usually, from the nature OF the case from ccumstanai
And cite your honors here to starkey. p 232 and
onward in which the cases on this subject are very uy
In the U. s. agt Cole, Mclean Z. 9. r., 5la, read
from Judge McIeans decision. page coo: 49,
tm6ny When crime Of high magntnde Is about to he
perpofrated BY the cOmblnaon Of individuals they do
not overly. but coverty secretly. Often
their guilt be proved only by crcumstanta evidence
This Kind OF evidence often satisfies jury of the guilt of
the accused. But in such the circumstances must
be strong TO be inconsistent with the innocence OF
the accused IL is said by writers evidence that
circumstances are stronger than positive proof
witness swearing positively, 1t said, msapprehend
the facts, falsely but circumstances cannot
lie common design is the essence OF the charge. aud
this may be made to appear whether acting
separately or together by common or different means,
all leading to the same unlawful result. And when
prind tace evidence has been given OF "a combination,
the acts aud confession OF one arc evidence against the
Others"
read further the subject Of priHa faeie evidence,
before the introduction Of declarations from Green
1.-THE principles apply to acts and declarations
OF one OF company OF conspratOrs in regard the
Foundation must rs be ia by proof saicent IN the
Judge to establish prima Jaee Tile fact of conspiracy
jury as tending to establish such fact"
take 1t your HonOrs familiar with these rules, and
do not propose TO spend more time In reading |
cede that II before your there is not ripa Jaee
evidence enough that should make 1t duty to cay to
the jury that you leave 1t to them TO judge OF whether
there has been conspiracy or MOI there - not such
and such makes IT your duty. your Honors judg
ment to leave It to the jury then there is no
II all lies in that single narrow point discussion.
/ repeat, that may not be misunderstood, concede
that there Is not such Prna laee evidence tending to
show conspiracy would warrant yOnr Honors in put
ting II to the Jury to say whether they believe on TINS
laid whatever for introducing anything that Cocoon
Aud, on the other hand il there is such prfma aeie
evidence tending to show conspiracy as would make
though. about Hu on this edence thus tending then
there is foundation laid for introducing the acts and
These all the views, your honor. which deem It
worth while TO present touching the legal question
US lne We btart WIN tnl5
great fact that cannot be rid Of that the 18th day
vi june, 1905 Jacob Dupuy ono Of these defendants,
did make an affidavit before Commissioner Osborn that
upon that affidavit OF Jacob Dupuy presented from Mr.
fuliertons oihce and written In tie handwriting of his
partner ,D9puy fret having sworn to the ani.
~ before Osborn, resworn TO It, tho war.
na,s,sf h9sucd that smh was arrested by sham
Dashal; that the never heard ~
tnat he was taken up to Birdsas Office at the corner OF
WOfthst aud broadway brought 10 tho M.rshas
ONCE, never brought 10 the Commissioner oice nd
that at BrdsalPs office al agreement was mada
with smith as the basis Of q compromise by which he
was 10 pay s3OOOo-sOOO in cash $4,000 i'm rairoaS
bonds; and that in pursuance of that aaso ecu