Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1873-02-07
The Wharton Trial.

On Monday last, the jury in Mrs. Whar-
TOMS case,- after being out three days and
nights, were discharged by Judge Millar,
they having failed to agree upon verdict
-four for acquittal, eight for conviction.
The States Attorney then moved that the
accused renew her recognizance to answer
the charge of an attempt to poison Mr..
Van Ness at the April term Of the Court,
which she promptly did. The Baltimore
San thus comments upon the case:
"The trial of Mrs. Wharton for the at
tempted poisoning of Eugene Van Ness has
come to an end land the protracted disagree
ment of the jury has led to their discharge
Their long deliberation and virtual i'm
prisonment failed to enable them to agree
Different persons will define variously the
cause of the disagreement, but it is certain
that there is no verdict. This result is not
due to incompetency of those who had
charge of the case for the State, for it is
seldom that public prosecutors have more
thoroughly and vigorously prosecuted their
side of the question. At any rate, all this
expensive and tedious process must be
gone over again, and how much the Whar-
ton case will cost the city of Baltimore Git
having been removed hence before it comes
to a conclusion, no one can calculate, for
it is possible that another trial. or another,
may have the like result of that which has
Just taken place. The first trial, for the
murder of General Ketchum by poison was
so far satisfactory that the jury were able
to say that the prisoner, in their opinion,
was not guilty. In this case, in view of
the evidence for the prosecution, especial
~ that of the person upon whom the at
tempt to poison is alleged to have been
made, there was little expectation of a
positive acquittal. 1t was thought posi-
BILE that the jury might disagree, and this
apprehension has been realized. Almost
simultaneously with this "lame and i'm
potent conclusion" we hear of disagree
ment of the jury in the case Of William M.
Tweed, in New York. Whilst it is right
to presume that the juries in both cases
have acted conscientiously, yet the result
of disagreement is alike unsatisfactory
to those who believe in the guilt and those
who maintain the innocence Of a prisoner,
for it neither convicts nor acquits, though
it leaves the accused under stronger cloud
of suspicion than before, from the fact that
twelve men impanneled to give verdict
cannot, after sitting the sworn evidence,
come to an agreement as to either guilt or
innocence. Juries. of course, never fail to
bear in mind, what counsel for prisoners
never fail to impress upon them, that the
accused must have the benefit ofany doubt;
that the absolute certainty, beyond all
question, of guilt must be demonstrated ;
and we may well excuse jury, after un-
dergoing the manipulations of ingenious
lawyers and medical experts, if they fail
to discriminate between a reasonable and
unreasonable doubt, and finally begin to
doubt their own existence, and find them
selves, in such a case as that just conclud-
ed at Annapolis, SO beset by 'phantoms'
that they are utterly unable to separate
the real from the imaginary. The admin
istration of criminal justice in this country
seems to be beset with great difficulties,
the institution of the jury itself, which is
so justly priced, having its disadvantages,
especially under the requirement of a I'M
animous verdict. And human institutions
have their defects, but as these are disclos-