Wilmington daily commercial., 1874-11-25
lor did moi throw thia nan owen. Nieht naa ap-

lor did not throw this man over. Night was ap-
preaching, he could afford to wait.
Taylor drove OF without Maokey says the
State; but Is he therefore a murderer II this
man had the cowardce to leave his friend, can
you convict him Of murder He drove of be-
cause he was full Of rum. Would he not have
stayed if he had been sober Drunkenness is
worse than insanity.
Would guilty man remain in tue vicinity of
the crime for days after, trading horses and
pitching quoits2 Could he have done as the
state supposes, he would have been the worst
villain in the world. II Taylor had sense of the
memory Of the death Of Maokey he drank 10
drown that memory. Now II he had been muir
derer, would he have stayed around the scene
of the murder? Had he been a murderer he
would have sold the team and fed
Again. Taylor always gives his right name
Ia that the conduct of murderer But they say
lie had ON Mackey's coat. What is more natur-
al Mackeys coat is in the wagon; Taylor s in
mis- shirt sleeves drunk, putting ON the first coat
he got in the wagon, would he not have thrown
that coat away II he had been murderer Now
by what means does the State infer that TAYLOR
is murderer because hs wore Mackey's coat
The strongest proof would be Of his guilt of his
not wearing it. Look at the similarity OF these
coats with false pockets, see how easy it would
be for Taylor, being drunk. to get the wrong
coat.
Referring to the fight OF Taylor to Ohio, Mr..
| Whiteley attributed this to lack of courage to
give the alarm, and argued from the prisoners
willingness to give himself up to his innocence.
As for Hemmiil's statement Of the confession
he thought that Mr. Ii. was influenced more by
the reward than the interest in the dead man
| or the Coronere inquest he spoke in strong
| terms, criticsing the removal of the scalp to
| ascertain whether the man was dro Sned, saying
| they should have examined the lungs and stom-
ach. II the State proves that ..Mackey came to
| his death in any other way than by drowning
| you must acquit him. 1t is not murder il n
man thi ows a dead body IN the creek.
| Mr. Whitley concluded by reference TO the
lack of motive for murder, there being no en-
mites. no debts, aud asserting that drunken
ness had great deal to do with the case.
| Mr.. Bayard opened with some remarks as to
| the legal facts of the case and especially as to
| the fact that the corpus deficit was not proved,
and then proceeded to read the testimony of the
coroner and of the doctors who made the exam
| nation.
He then read the indictment, alleging the
murder to be by drowning, and argued that it
| was necessary to prove the alleg conclu-
| sively. He claimed that an examination of the
| lungs aud stomach should have been made as
then it might have appeared how Mackey died,
| but that no examination OF the scalp or skull
| could by any manner of means i'll
form jury that man was
drowned. The State could not
| presume man was drowned simply because he
was found in the water. He might have died OF
| apoplexy he might have died of heart disease
he might have been murdered and thrown into
that stream. We have no proof when, where,
| ana now Lnhl DOuY WIS nrnl IOuuu. III IL SAID
by stage driver, but no one knows his name
no one can tell who he is. He was not called by
the State. II that man died in any other way
than is alleged in the indictment, this man Tay.
lor must be acquitted | ask this Court to charge
the jury that the pus delech is not sufficiently
proved to warrant conviction.
MI Bayard then argued at some length the
failure OF the State TO make out the proof OF
guilt, the onus being upon them, aud asked the
Court to charge the jury that the hypothesis
| ba hs gta Ia rAns
read from Wharton on confessions and argued
that confession IN capital is very
doubtful species OF evidence. to be received
with great caution, citing cases to prove his pc
sition. hasty confession made TO persons no
authorized to receive them il the weakest kind
! Of proof. The court was therefore, asked to in
stIuct the Jury that every accused man is TO b,
presumed innocent until found guilty, audstha
5 the benefit of every reasonable doubt should b.
given 10 the prisoner
Mr.. Bayard then began to address the Jury
} denying the presence of direct evidence of tn
: commission of the murder as charged, and as
! sertng that wherever chain OF testimony i
8 sought to be wrought of facts, remotely connect
ed. with the fact they are intended when 81
united to prove the strength of that chain i
equal only to the strength of Its weakest part.
9 You forge facts strong IN themselves with wea
3 fact shat chains strength Of that weak fact. l
: one gives away they all give away When tn
State ailege a cruel murder of Robert A. Macke
they are bound TO prove murder. You hav
Q nothing before you but the presumption. Yo
have no means OF knowing the manner in whic
Mackey died. He may have died of apoplexy q
= been poisoned. Nobody knows how or when h
I got into the creek. There is just as much proc
& he took the path the jury did aud walked
y where lie was found as that he was thowD in.
+ Mr.. Bayard then analyzed the testimony Q
the Farrells, stating his belief in their honesty
a but claiming the impossibility of their being Wi
It ness TO the facts sworn TO. lie also asserted t
:. imposslbility of distinguishing the clothing {
= the men at the distance they were of.
II The confessions were then referred TO, an
e their irTreconcilabilty with the circumstance
e as assured by the defence sought TO be show
+ claiming the unnaturaness of the hypoth
= sis OF tie case as made out by the State that
u murderer would add witnesses against himsel
g. Mr. Hammill he pronounces the blood hound
the case, and asserted the impossibility OF Ia
Il lor making confession TO him. as neither She
ie ills Rowe or Armstrong heard snch statemen
lh The plea of drunkenness was enforced by Il
or mistake III the selection Of the coats, and Il
ne conclusion sought 10 be established that theI
l fore the prisoner was ignorant Of Macke,
death When he came to his senses he fou
he was guilty OF something, and what WAS i
. A breach Of trust. He should respond in da
he ages and there his liabilities end.
n The light to Ohio was construed into eff,
e- to get work to obtain an honest livelihood, a
NJ 1.-The demeanor of the prisoner out there q
py that Of a guilty man. lie did not know Of ca
III what was the cause Of his arrest. He cot
have escaped arrest easily II lie would.
ne Mr.. Hayard concluded II there il error
Il your verdict you take life you cannot resto
or That is why the law throws round the accus
lat every shield. ! have felt it my duty not to lea
10, this case, while any do bt rested, in your min
iot | think you feel what feel on this subject
he you do not feel this mans nnOcense now W
ne as do, no words Of mine now can make y