The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-07-27

The Case Given to the Jury-Judge scudder's
Charge-The Jury Out Thirteen Hours
with No Result-Locksd Up for the
Hight-condiotng Rumors a.
to How They Stand.

jury. The usual congregation OF citizens were
present in the Court House yesterday morning when
Judges Scudder and Virgins took their seats
upon the bench. and the audience were soon iulled
into silence. At intervals during the delivery OF
Judge Scudder's address mufled murmurs OF ap-
probation ran through the court room. The charge
was extremely temperate. terse and cautiously
worded, being just what was expected from the
even-tempered and courteous presiding Judge
II was looked upon favorably by counsel for both
sides, and was regarded generally as one to which
neither side could take exception. After congratu-
lattng the jurors and members OF the press on the
close OF the trial, Judge Scudler spoke substan-
italy as f00ws:-
The Indictment is for o conspiracy, entered into
on the 9th OF May with Proctor DENIM and Foley
to rob the First National Bank OF Jersey City. 1t
Is In the usual form, charging these defendants
with having cOnspired for this criminal purpose
The simple issue to be tried is whether these de-
PENDANTS, or either of them, guilty OF conspir-
acy with the burglars. Either Of them, or both,
may be convicted. The nature and object OF con-
spiracy were then defined by the Judge. 1t is not
denied, he said, that the acts OF some of the con-
spirators were criminal.
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES
are Proctor, DENIM and Foley. They are oil CON-
petent witnesses. Their testimony is clearly ad-
missibe, but the value Of that testimony is for the
jury to consider II the testimony of these men
stood without support would say to the jury that
although they might convict on 1t, yet should not
advise conviction. Outside OF the testimony Of
accomplices there should be proof OF the circum-
stances OF the crime and that the defendants were
implicated in it. The number OF accompices who
testify is immateria. Their evidence must be cor
rOborated. Let us examine briefly the evidence.
DENIM Is the principal witness. There is appar-
emily some discrepancy between his statement on
the hrst trial and his statement on the second as
WHO FIRST PROPOSED THE PLOT.
The omission on the part OF the burglars in rela-
sheraton az IL goes to show lack of conssteEcv
After detailing the plans and work OF the con-
spirators His Honor said lis the story of the
burglars probable one or Is 1t false on It's face?
Is 1t made up for some sinister purpose or Is 1t
truer This question Is to be determined by the
jury. We would naturally suppose that such o
s aansa Ss s pubic and they
are charged with having been in league with the
Of the suferings ana losses that would ensue upon
the robbery OF the bank 1t is difficult to believe
that the defendants could plan
SO HEARTLESS AN UNDERTAKING.
Character ID the shield OF police officers when
they must go among thieves for the detection Of
crime. And In order to be able to judge whether
this shield is sufficient to aid in generating these
defendants It is necessary to examine into their
character. McWllliams has already been con-
the city treasury. He was, moreover. addicted TO
drink. and although his tipping was not criminal,
to show his weakness in resisting temptation.
Against DOye's previous character nothing has
been salo. But II these men had always acted up.
rightly and were beyond repr0ach this case would
story first toldi Not before October. Was this
Was 1t arranged that while on the way to mags-
trates Office these parties were to escape through
THE COMPLETELY OF THESE DEFENDANTSY
r
burglars In company with Mrs. Devereux, to entrap
the defendantsS What was their motive lOr so
doingS Is 1t q development OF the natural spirit
OF thieves against their pursuerss Is it revenge
on these Oficefs VINO guarded themf or Is 1t a
held out to accomplices in this State for giving
testimony in court OF justice. But in case OF
that the Jury consider what motives the burglars
had, II any, for 80 doing. The defendants natly
contradict the burglars statements Each OF the
defendants Is u competent witness for himself.
They deny completely and fully all knowledge Of
the crime until after the arrest was made. II the
testimony stood in this manner between the par
ties should promptly advise the jury to acquit
hem. But the State has offered
CORROBORATIvE EVIDENCE.
This should prove some fact which can satisfy
you that the plot was gotten up and that the de-
iendants were Implicated in It, MRS. Devereux is
sidered. she Is In oil respects suspicious Witness
The Judge then contrasted the evidence OF Nc
the jurors whom they would beievei There is
corroboration, he continued, OF some facts In this
case. HandCun Keys were found In Denning'S cell;
despatch was sent by Doyle to John Ahern,
saying, "The examination will not take place
today.n This refers to denomination, and
1t ts for you to determine thercfrOm whether
or not Doyle and Mcwilliams were Interested in
the denomination as part OF plot to effect the
release OF the prisoners Speaking OF the orange,
to meet at 212 West Forty third street. the Judge
said Much depends on the character OF McD0nough.
account agree in the important particulars. MRS.
Devereux and. McDonough agree IN saying that
and e the or Doyle Was Con-
corning the division Of the plumber they are also
BELIEVES M,poNoueH's EVIDENCE
1t Is strongly corroborattve OF the evidence Of
Denning and Mrs. Devereux. The conversation OF
sSered against unless you peeve
that McWlliams was told OF this BY Doyle and that
the latter was acting for McWilliams. 1t was pc
culiar that when Doyle was asked whether McWil-
liams had not put up the job he did not grow in
dignant, but merely denledtt. Referring to the
o
compare that letter with other writing OF DOyles
and then determine whether 1t was written by
Doyle, or by Mrs. Devereux and McDOnough in
order to entrap Doyle. II Doyle wrote 1t 1t IL evil
dence against him, showing his guilt. II not it
will work In his lavor Again
THE FLIGHT OF M'wILLIAMs
is presumption OF guilt and calls Tor satisfac.
tory explanation. All the circumstances OF that
flight must be weighed with ordinary caution and
the light OF your own experience in determining
the nature OF the night. On the other hand 1t IL
WOItuy vi IetudIk tudt uO peTsou cVeI SdW cltucT
McWiams or Doyle IN conference with any OF the
burglars prior to the date Of the arrest. When the
arrest was made both defendants were absent.
We're they absent by accident or by designi Was
Doyle away previously in consequence OF ILL
nessS There are contradictions and difficulties
in this case that not easy OF
solution. After all, 1t is curious, complicated
AFFAIR, but 1t all comes to the simple questi0n-DO
you believe that all this Is adrOit plan to enrap
these defendants, or do you believe that they per-
petrated base crime against the puDicY II is de-
sirable that there should be an end Of litigation
II you believe them guilty, convict them promptly;
If innocent, or II you entertain reasonable doubt
Of their guilt, let them 60 free.
The defendants sat facing the Judges during the
delivery OF the charge and maintained their Gus
t0mary composure. Three officers were then ap-
pointed and sworn, with the usual formalites,
to take care OF the jurors pending their
deliberations. The Judges had proper arrange
ments made for attendance to the sick
juror, Mr. O'Brien, who. with much difficulty,
endeavored to be present. At twelve O'Clock the
jurors retired, and the officers were sworn to pre-
vent communication with them. IL is said that
slips OF paper were thrown subsequently from
win NJ ha