The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1873-01-10
The End Of the Stokes Trial.

NEW YORK, January threat
crowds gathered around the court of
Oyer and Terminer to day, where
Mr.. Tremaine was making the con
Guiding portion of his argument. in
defence of Stokes.
After an exhaustive argument, in
which the characters of Fisk and the
witnesses for the prosecution were
severely excoriated, Mr.. Tremaine
closed his effort for the prisoner at
1 O'Clock. There was great ap-
plause from the audience upon the
conclusion of the address, which was
suppressed by the judge.
After3 a recess, Mr.. Beach com
menced the reply for the prosecution
and spoke for several hours. He re-
viewed at lergth the testimony Of the
principal witnesses, and called upon
the jury to Judge whether, from the
story of Stokes himself, the case
was not one of murder. Stokes
early career and the circumstances
of the murder were commented upon
with severity. On the question of
generalization Mr.. Beach submitted
10 the jury, on broad principles,
whether, at the moment OF the firing
of the pistol shot the prisoner in
tended to kill.
When Mr.. Beach had concluded,
the judge at once proceeded to de-
liver his charge. After compli-
menting the jury, counsel and press,
for abstaining from criticism in the
case, he charged that all questions
were to be discarded, which bore up
on the character and habits, or social
surroundings of either the deceased
or the prisoner. The killing being
practically conceded, the question
was, whether that killing was
crime. 1t was agreed on both sides
that the killing was either murder
in the first degree, msnslaughter in
the third degree, or justifable homi-
eide. To determine the point at is
sue, it was important to consider
whether two pistols were found and |
whether the prisoner was acting in
self defense. He then explained the
theory of the prosecution, that there
was but one pistol, and of the de-
fense that there were two. He init
mated that the jury might consider
another theory, viz: That the pistol
found by the lady was dropped by
the prisoner, though this theory was
irreconcilable with the testimony.
No one testified to seeing a pistol in
Fisk's hands except the prisoner.
The silence ofthe prisoner when ar
rested did not necessarily involve
guilt. If the jury believed that the
prisoner fired from premeditated de-
sign to kill, without danger, they
should find a verdict of murder in
the first degree, unless they found a
verdict Of manslaughter in the third,
and on the latter point they were to
consider, if there was conflict, and
the character of Mr.. Fisk
was such, as from his menaces, to
.ead to an apprehension of danger.
On that point only, viz: Whether
5he deceased was personally Vio-
ent and dangerous man or not, were
hey to consider his character. 1t
vas the duty of the prisoner to salts
y them that the killing was not
nj r Ter.
His Honor then explained the /
lind of doubt to which the prisoner
would be entitled, and in conclusion ,
aid it would be a great misfortune /
f the jury now disagreed. Ordi- i
larilv, twelve honest, intelligent
nen. do, after consideration, make v
ID their minds and agree where pas d
ion, prejudice or obstinacy, or other {
motives, present themselves. He c
made these remarks because the jury i
n the former trial disagreed. The v
risoner was either guilty, and should
e convicted, or innocent, and acquit- c
d. His honor did not anticipate a n
in this case. The jury :
hen retired. Z
The jury, after being out some :,
Nv hours, entered about eleven = =
clock and rendered a verdict
yainst the prisoner of murder in tu
le first degree. Judge Boardman 81
eferred sentence until Monday, 0'