Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1871-07-15
LOCAL NEWS.
cBERCH SERVICES TG-.NORROH:.

IL.
;,,r md lecture ut night, 10y Rev. Mr.. Hemenway.
METH EPISCOPAL CHUR0H SoUTHISermon IL
,,,r morning and Mt night, by Rev. DR., uough.
METH. PgoT CHURCH-Scrrnon in the morn
ing and 81, nig ht by Rev. Mr. benson
BAPTIST CHUECu-Scrmon III the morning
and At night, by Rev. Mr.. Ryand
YoUSG MES's CHRISTIAN ASsoC'E-Prayer
meeting in the NJ. L. Church South, at four p;
-, Bethel Prince street dock, 1T p. m jail
..rvices at 2p. III. Aims House services At y
o'clock D. IN. During the week there will be
daily prayer meetings in the rooms Of Assocla-
ion ut .. N. Suburban prayer meeting will be
held every Tuesday night 1T 5 o'clock ut Mrs.
Staubury's, near the Orange depot. An open
air meeting will be held at the corner OF hlng
and St. Asaph streets tomorrow evening at u
o'clock.
GERMAN LUTHERAN-Scrvc ut | 4. III. and
.; : D. H., at the rooms OF the Christian AS>o-
CATION, by Rev Mr. B!schotl.
TuE BIGAMY CAsE-EERDlCr OF THE JURY
AND PRISONER SENTENCED TO IHREE l EARS
IN THE Observation-Disclosures STAYED.
In the Corporation Court yesterday: after the
close Of our report OF the Bird case, and upon
the rc-assembling of the Court, the counsel Tor
the defence stated that they intended lntroauc-
inc no witnesses; whcreupon.
D. L. Smoot, esq, Commonwealth attorney,
addressed the jury, arguing that the prosecution
had fully proved the case which! II set ont 10
establish: that he never knew one more concu-
siye)v proved; and that while he would be the
Inst one to press down the hands raised to ask
tnr mercy vet it was for the jury to determine
whether. under the evidence, Thomas X. Bird
urpht not to suffer the fill penalty of the law.
What may have been the previous character OF
Mary Bird is a matter Of no consequence
Thounh Thomas Il. Bird and Mary Brodcn
mov have lived together for years before they
we're married, is matter with which the jury
have nothing to do The on y questions TO be
determined are were Thomas K. Bird and
Mary Broden able to enter INTO Il contract OF
marriage? did they so enter: were they mar,
RED in accordance with the solcmnlt!eS required
iy law? Did Thomas K. Bird wed henrietta
,;odwiu and if 50. was such last marriage en-
tired into when the legitimate first wife was
living? All these questions must be answered IN
the affirmative, aud therefore, Thomas H. Bird
must be tound guilty al the offence wtcrcwlth
he stands charged. :,
Col, NJ. ID. Ball opened for the defence. He
said bramv is not an offence either against the
natural law, or the revealed law OF Cod the
uatriarchs themselves had 4 plurality OF
wives. 1t is ONLY an offence at common law
coeuizant in the ecclesiastical courts, and
though il is made Il crime by the words OF the
statute, if the law was done away with entirely,
the female portion of the community would be
greatly benefited Laws in relation to blganly
must be strictly construed y man cannot be
found guilty OF 4 crime unless every requisite
of that crime be fully proved by the Common.
wealth; prisoner is entitled to the benefit OF
every doubt, all OF which must be thrown IN the
scale of innocence, and if the Jury are not satisfied
that the Commonwealth has proved It's case
beyond I'LL doubt they must find the prisoner
Nbo of
essential to the establishment OF guilt lies on
the Commonwealth; nothing passes by lmpll-
cation against the prisoner; at common law to
constitute the crime of bigamy the consumma,
ton of the first marriage must be proved, and
the Commonwealth in this case must show that
the marriage of Bird and Mary Brodeu,
WAS performed according to the laws OF the
District Of Columbia. This it had not done
how does the Jury in this case know but that
in the District of Columbia :; marriage IL 4
private room with only two witnesses Is not 4
valid marriage the testimony OF Father Ne
Carthy is not competent to prove what were !iie
laws OF marriage in force IN the District, Or thai
they were complied with; ii ought to be testified
to By practising lawyer OF the District, or
proved by the production OF Its printed statutes
The intent is also an essential lngreuleA' IL
crime, and Bird had no criminal intent whcn
he married Henrietta Goodwin, as he never re-
gardcd the ceremony of his marriage with said
Mary Broden as of any validity. MIR. Ball de
fence was able and ingenious.
William kilgour, esq, for the defence n;1dc
very eloquent and touching appeal on Behalf
of his client, the prisoner at the bar. bringing
tears to the eyes of moro than one OF his near
crs by his pathos, and enchanting the large
crowd BY his forensic display. 1t would be
doing injustice to Mr.. n. to attempt 4 mere
cold abstract of his animated, and often pathc-
tic address. Hc reasoned on the law, and the
evidence, urged the calls Humanity, and lnvok-
ed the sympathies Of the jury. All the points
which could be made in the case were argued
with effect.
y. l.. Smoot esq, Commonwealth h $ Mtor-
hey, in closing for the prosecution insisted that
its case had been fully proved; that 1t Is
against the revealed law of God, us well as the
statute, for any man to have plurality o.
wives, that the very existence and wel-bclng OF
society depend upon the laws OF marriage:
being held inviolatc in every particular thereof,
and that in order to teach men to respect the
same. and to deter others from like offences,
ayerdict of guilty should be rendered. Mr.
Smoot conducted the prosecution humancty,
but with faithtulnesS and ability:
The counsel for the defence then submitted
four Instructions I'LL of which were refused
by the Court, and others, prepared 10y his
honor, were given to the jury for their guId-
ance Counsel for prisoner excepted to the
ruling of the Court in refusing to give the IN
structions asked for by them.
At 30 minutes past 5 o'clock the Jury lett
the Court room and returned ut T.! clock, to
ask the Court whether or not they could, upon
the evidence adduced at the trial, lind that the
first marriage was celebrated according to the
laws of the District Of Columbia
The Court instructed them that they could.
Counsel for prisoner excepted.
Afterwards, at 6:35 clock the jury came IN
with verdict of GUILTY, and fixed the term OF
imprisonment at years i'll the penitentlary.
In answer to an lnterrogatory, the pTlSouei
replied that he had nothing to say why the
Court shouldnot pass Judgment upon HIM. The
same was passed in accordance with the YER
diet but with stay of execution TO give prs-
uuer's counsel time to apply for L supersedcas.