The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1873-04-26
LOCAL AFFAIRS.


Tnk DAVIS CAsg DrclpED.- decision
IN the case Of Joseph Davis, which was taken
to the Court Of Appeals by his counsel on
exceptions to the rulings Of the Court below,
yes gwen ON Friday o. last week We give
the following in regard to tiie decision from
the Baltimore Gazette Of Monday
The case Of Joseph Davis, appealed from
the decision Of the Washington county court,
was heard in December last before five judges
al If whom were OF opinion that there was no
error in the rulings Of the court below. AT
the request Of one Of the judges who heard
the argument, the case was again argued be-
fore seven judges, the entire bench, except, /
ing Judge Alvey, who presided at the trial
below. During the progress Of the trial, six
teen exceptions were taken, the principal ones |
being two--the FIRST, whether il was conpe- |
tent for Sheu, an accessory, TO testify for the |
prisoner, and, secondly, whether il was com
petent for the State to offer in evidence the |
opinion Of the examining and other physicians |
as TO the nature and character Of the instru-
ment hy which the wounds were inflicted,
The first question the opinion considered
was the question and answer Of DR. Mannakee
as to what kind Of an instrument IN his opin-
ion, could have inflicted the wound. He re-
Piled, A crowbar or an adze' might have
done il. The second was the question when
the uoctor salu ln9ior esiieu ~, uu,opSy' ="
examination OF me ooayi anu .ne pooA W.
handed MN. Inc Vour. ayeluel 'nis inouJ'
It Tor the Parpose OF testing 'he 4, wilhess SNOW
edge, could not De allowed. Inc nIs. point
was that the answer to the first question was
that the reply was a mere possibility. The
Court did not think SO. The third point--as
TO the admissibility Of the question to DIR.
Herring, whether L.ynn's wounds could have
been by accident-the Court believed that
the question was properly w r NY uon ~,
OF expert lesuhiohy, ihe Soail p1'ie' ~ s''et
the question as 70 whether some o'nel par. VI
me skull 'nail where tne Mouius WI was
nnDie 70 INJURY py A1cluel, "es ~ ~ M A.
Inc ques'ons III ene hl'n, SAVE a'ie e, ~
exceptions, az 70 "neaisr hpses IaAsh ~ ~
tline OF examination % my oouy " wy pnysa
Clans wouiu haFe haue wy .es'.inD" G sso
accurate were cieaIy ins s.n Ny ~.
neneNe1, IN answer 70 elen.h eAeep.lo''' ~ ~.
bilhngsiea, amer nearing yhe Vesusnony u -,
MannaAee, anu VI vonuinIn ". I,nS, , WI
properly ih'ertoss,,eu ~ " '''e
ana fracture was hneH 20 nave peen ptos .La
eea py acciaene On ossesn'll M ~" sae
WITNESS s1,u ue heIlu ouI Ial. VI sne 'J
mony Of " Msnnaeee, h:oea sns" , rn,,,.
70 ha,e IT = Vesuev y. '.; III
tnousnt rum sna' "a 'no .ssu'no"y ~ i'"N
nearu he mis eouipeseu. " M sn Jlgli;riao
:, 10 ehe 'eh.h sSeepuo.., uAaa IL 80
9lu nor answer me question: asAeu, ue Noul'
ueeiaso t'iA' tne ~ sa.u u ""o n,s "'y "n
s"eT W 'ne duesuvni "uer lVpe i =
the Soure Iineu ''e i"''''s 'e''"' ''"' '''e
answer rs was proper. :, ,..:. - a..
Inc s,eNei'i. ~ -, ie,''',oL ~ ~
Jam eNiasnoe uoni O. O.. ioniy, - ~
oourt REUSED anu, tlie otate a'ersato ee.i's
I .eu - 'he jury "''hAe' 'i' eeP'''' '''''''
I IL
w .ne t w IN sWHJTps'ont " m;S "l',i
compelent lot ". Mchee' Sl'er seeluS sAu.,,
anu neaIng .esu. sunni III i;,,aI, ha,.n haon ~
daced nv falling in The sink. Ruling below
affirmed.
/ As to objection to the testimony Of DIR. Dor
sey, on the ground he had formed an opinion
in the case beforehand, from written descrip-
ton of wounds and sink furnished by the
Attorney General, it in no manner affected
his competency.
Dr. Scott, in the fourteenth exception, had
not heard all the evidence describing the
wounds and sink; had seen model of the
latter, but had not seen the skull, yetitwas com
petent to answer If il could or likely have
been produced by falling in the sink.
The question as raised in the sixteenth ex.
4 ception, ms to whether an accessory before the
fact is competent to testify for the principal
below, the Court decided that he was not at
common law it can no longer be considered an
open question. Not a single case has been
referred to by the counsel, who has argued
this case with zeal so commendable, and
with an ability not less conspicuous nor have
we been able after the most dihgent examina-
ton, to find one in rhich such cridence has
been admitted. The question is then argued
at length, the act of 1864, chapter l09, being
considered almost in the outset. They con
clude their opinion on this point in this Ian
guage: "We rest our decision upon the plain
language Of the statute which declares that no
person, who, in any criminal proceedings, is
charged with the commission Of an indictable
offense, shall be competent or compellable to
give evidence for or against himself
OF the sixteenth exception, which was as
to the testimony of the witness Harmon, who
said he was at Union Bridge on the afternoon
of the murder, and was in Joshua Switzer's
office, who looked at his watch, and said it
was O'Clock and who testified Mt quarter
past three o'clock that afternoon he saw the
prisoner in Union Bridge. Switzer denied