Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1873-02-05

law oT your duty as Jurors, x you Apply 20 |
it the sound principles of common reason |
you would act upon in your private affairs |
where high and serious interests were |
concerned and where you would not act |
were you not confident Of the facts upon |
which you proceeded.
The question may present Itself how
does the proof of other crimes show the !
prisoners motives in this transaction:
Abstract definitions seldom aid in apply
ing legal principles An illustration serves
a better purpose If one OF your number,
having bought Dote of hand from tray
elcr apparently respectable, should assign
it to neighbor Tor value and it turned out
to be forged, few would suspect him OF
crime if this was the only note Of the
kind lac ever passed. If, however, the
party who sold him the same paper were
on trial and it should he shown that he
had sold similar forged papers throughout
the neighborhood and Others were found
in his possession, none would doubt his
guilty knowledge in this instance, and the
law would justify n jury in acting upon
the testimony as plepary proof of that
fact 1t looks upon him who has com
mitted other and similar crimes, who has
turned his back upon the lawful and hon
est processes of business to procure his
livelihood by fraud and lawlessness, as en-
titled to fewer presumptions in his favor,
when he has transferred securities actually
tegrity and uprightness. 1t is but the
common sense rule you are TO apply here.
The strength and force of its influence in
the circumstances is wholly for you. 1t is
measured by no tcchnichal ami perpleAlnS
subtleties, but as we said in reference to
another subject, reason as you would in
matters of life, in which you had deep
interest and when you would by no means
20 forward without caution and consider
alton.
Very briefly will now recall an outline
of the several frauds the Government
claims to have shown:
The Samuel Elliott case is n pretended
claim as the guardian of his orphan chill
cren. The papers, both original, and for
the subsequent payments, sho whe asserted
they resided in Monroe, LOudon and Nc
MINI counties; that he repeatedly swore
he was their guardian.
If you credit the evidence of the Govern
ment that no such appointment was made;
if YOU believe the defendants own witnosS,
Petit, that there is none, and that the GER
tificatc was fraudulent, then the defendant
would be guilty of fraud if he falsely al
legged he was guardian, and in that assum-
ed capacity obtained the money his receipts
show he has received. That there was no
such Samuel Elliott, member of Bryson's
Company; no such children, and that the
only Samuel Elliott in the county referred
to was produced in court instead Of being
dead, are only additioal evidences of the
fraud otherwise sufficiently shown by the
simple proof that he was never guardian OF
any such children whatever.
In the Susannah Davis claim the fraud
is alleged to consist in putting in two
claims for one Susannah Davis as the wild
ow Of two deceased soldiers, one by the
name of James Davis aud the other by the
name of James *. Davis.
James Davis is alleged to be soldier in
the 9Th Indiana Cavalry.
james X. Davis, in the 9th PennsylNa
mia Volunteers.
IN both claims he AYERS her residence t
be in Monroe county, Tennessee, and tina
her maiden name was Susannah Raper
In both that she was married at Cherokee
county, North Carolina, without naming
any particular place; in both they are mar
ried by the same minister, the Rev. JOIN
Wilson on the 25th of September, 1860
IT appears that Susannah swOre to the pa
pcrs but she testities that she made bu
one claim and did not know that two wer
being prosecuted. She has reaped, sh,
saws, no benefit from the double presenta
ton.
We are aware of no explanation of thes
applications. false and fraudulent on thei
face, if they are both, as would appea
from the only proof offered to be for tn
same woman.
The Sarah Hickey CASE is one which til
papers assert she was the widow OF La
fsyfcttc Hickey soldier in Bryson's com
pany, who died in the service, He ii
fact resided in Georgia. There, too, wa
his real widow, whose name was EliZabetl
and not Sarah, and whom, it is alleged
had no such children as the pension wa
procured for, and who had no relation
with or ever emploded Boyd. That tn
whole action on his part was entirely hC
titious and fraudulent. That he made tn
oaths, the papers, and procured the none
without ever knowing even the name c
widow for whom he pretended to act.
"a in proof that when confronted with TN
agent of the real Mrs. Hickey he offere
to turn over to her the fraudulent and eH
excessive pension that she might in futuI
enioy the fruits of the fraud if she woul
thus settle his claims for what he had a
ready received. There is no conflict l
the evidence, still you should AS in a
other cases, consider it carefully to see II
satisfies your minds.
That of George Rose is another case {
pretended guardianship, upon which som
81 800 has been obtained. The papers Il
lege that the children resided in Monrc
county. The real George Rose is elaine
to have lived in North Carolina, but /
was not a member of Bryson's compan!
is not dead and had no such children.
is claimed there was no George Rose
member of that company and that the il
sertion of this one and numerous Utht
names in the muster roll was fraudulen
But that is immaterial. If Boyd was M