The New York herald., 1870-03-13
THE FULLERTON CASE.
Argument Of Counsel For and Against tho Ad-
instability Of the Declarations Of Co-oonspira-
tors a. Evidence Against tho Defendant

The trial in the case OF the United States vs. wit.
Ham Fullerton was resumed yesterday In the United
States Circuit Court. before Judges woodrun ana
Blatchiord. The court room was quite as much
crowded and the doors open for admission more
strongly besleged throughout the day than any of
the previous days OF the trial. II was known thas
the prosecution had put In ali their direct tes.
tlmony, and that counsel would enter upon
argument for ard against the admssiDllity of the
declarations OF co conspirators as evidence, aud 1t
was supposed tnat such argument would be oon.
cluded IN tlmo to enable the Court to render au
OPINION thereon. Counsel, however, occupied the
whole OF tie session up TO four O'Clock, Mr.. Pierre.
pont FOR the prosecution and MIR. StOught0n for the
defence
LElrEa FROM BELKNAP TO THE TREASURY DEPART-
MENT.
letter from Delknap to the Treasury Department,
dateu July 5. LOSS, was offered by ire prosecution,
Dolh rs original evdencc and Us evidence OF tho
declaration OF q co-conspirator. the prosecution
claiming that II 1t was not original evidence sum-
Gent evidence OF conspiracy nad been gwen 70
warrant the dec,arati rs OF co-conspirators.
The defence oojesIeu 10 the letter III eLner aspect
Tue .ours desiieu 10 hear .ne District Attorney on
the point nrst o tue admlssplity ol the letter as
original evidence.
ARaulENT or Mr.. PIERREPoNr.
The District Attorney said tnat the evidence
showed tlab Beikulp had conferred win Co MS
sIoner osoorn relation 10 the secret obtaining Of
andaviis anI issuing Of warrants just previous to
wriing tas letter. ana that THIS letter was ia reia-
tion TO the ootainmens OF Information OF wniskey
was to reporb 70 Beiknap ins .ead OF District
Attorney tracey. Ho tnen c0ntended thas
tue separation OF the trial OF Fullerton from
tue trials OF the other defendants did no. prevent
the reception 0i evIuence a3 10 conspiracy Clas
could nave been received at JOINT trial OF all de-
Iendants. IL this was not allowed each cOnsprator
could claim a separate trial, and evidence cf the
separate acts or cOn5plrator5 not being ra
ceivel, eacn defendant would be separately DIS
charged. as no conspiracy could be shown.
Tn3 Court SAID tnaL whatever evidence was com.
pelent against the accused Ia Joint tial was com.
q
Counsel tnen Went over the evidence, comment
ing at considerable length on many parts Of It, and
contendlng that suiIlceat evidence had been given
snow the ex .sIelce OF conspiracy between Mr..
Fullerton ana the otuer deiendants. not tried with
hlm. 10 exIoft money In violation Of law.
ARGUMENT FOR TuE DEFESCE.
w. Stoughton tnen rose to reply ana c0ntended
that the evidence had not only laled 10 show the ex
isLence oI conspiracy, Dut had proven that con-
spilacy existed ncu.paIlng MIR. Fullerton, and nat,
thereiole as there Was no more testimony
10 add except the declarations OF Cocoon
splrators, which could not be admitted as
evidence II conspiracy had oeen proven, MIR. Full
lerJon was emitted TO All acuultal on the evidence
for the government. COuuse. III continuing his ar
gument said that so far from MIR. Fullerton having
been guilty OF the acts charged, ne had performed
his duty III position in winch ne was placed with
sought TO be MADE the victim oil Dad men. Many 0f
The spectators appauded AZ this point, when tno
Court SAID that any manifestations OF applause or
disapprooation were hereafter made, the space oc.
cupied oy those making such manifestations woald
Al the conclusion OF Mr.. Stoughton's argument
The court adjourned till Monday at IL A. Al.