The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1874-02-07
{ HISTORY OF THE CASE.

Near Linwood Station, this county, ON the
9TH Of April, 1872, Abraham L. Lynn. a
miller, was found dead in his grain bin, with
his skull fractured in several places, appar.
entity with some heavy iron instrument. At
two o'clock of that day he had in his coat
pocket pocket-book containing $500, which
was missing, and neither pocket-b book nor
money has ever been heard from. Lynn had
in his employ young man, about twenty one
years OF age, namedJoseph Davis, and a small
room Of Lynn's, near the mill, was tenanted
as shoemaker's shop by Hamilton Shue.
An investigation OF the circumstances of
Lynn's death resulted in the indictment of
Joseph Davis for the murder Of Lynn, and
Hamilton Shue as accessory. On the Sd Of
June, 1872, the trial Of Davis was commenced
in the Circuit Court for this county, which
occupied twelve days, and resulted in no YER
dict, the jury, after being out twenty -four
hours, stating to the Court that il was limos
sibie for them to agree. Attorney General
Syester, States Attorney Norment, and Hon.
John L. Smith conducted the prosecution,
and Messrs. Maulsby and Bond for the pris.
oner. The case was then removed to Wash
ington county, and on the 18th Of September,
1872, the second trial of Davis for murder
commenced before Judges Alvey, Motter and
Pearre. The State was represented by the
Attorney General and State Attorney Zeller,
Of Washington county, and X. b. Norment,
Of Carroll, and Messrs. Maulsby, Bond, Frea-
ner and Neil defended the prisoner On the
twelfth day Of the trial, the jury, after being
ont half an hour, returned verdict Of guilty
Of murder in the first degree. The Court then
liked the bail in Shines case at 5000, which
was not given. On the LIST Of October, 1872,
tho al H., III -. 4
trial, which was oyerruled. The Court post.
poned Shue's case 10 the November term.
Mr.. Maulsby filed sixteen bills OF exceptions
TO the Court of Appeals in Davis case. the
principle point being that Shue's evidence
was not allowed TO be given on Davis trial.
AT November term Sine was tried before
the Court and acquitted. The Court of An
pesls, after long argument, overruled all
the bills Of exceptions and affirmed the rul-
ings of the Circuit Court Of Washington co.
Alter some time had elapsed the perseverinR
efforts OF Davis counsel induced one mem.
Der Of the Court of Appeals TO ask the Court
70 grant rehearing Of the bill Of exceptions,
which was granted as matter Of courtesy 10
member Of the Court The result, after an.
other long argument, however, was the same.
the dismissal Of the writ oferror Jan. ?. 1874
The counsel for Davis then applied 10 the
Goyerner for an executive pardon for Davis.
and the whole case was third time argued
before the Governor, who declined 10 grant
the pardon. Davis was then sentenced to
be hung by the court Of Washington county
on the 18th Of Sept last. Dayis counsel next
filed with the Governor an affidavit made by
Hamilton Shew that Lynn came into his shop
some timeafter Davis had left for Union Bridge.
and consequently could not have killed Lynn
The Governor consented that the witnesses
should be examined before him, including
Shue, and argument was had before him at
his Office in this city, the State being repre-.
sented by It's law officers, and the prisoner
Davis by his counsel. The examination
lasted two days, September u and 10, Shue
was not present, and the Governor postponed
the hearing for two weeks to enable counsel
TO produce Shue rs q witness. When the
time arrived the counsel for the prisoner
informed the Governor that Shue had left the
State and gone West, but that he would en-
deavor to find him. On the 9Th ofDecember.
Shine mnde his appearance before the Cover.
nor with bis counsel, and was examined by
the Governor in relation to his affidavit. The
result was that the Governor on the 18th Of
December signed the warrant for Davis exc
cution on the 9Th Of February. In the mean
time the counsel for Davis discovered certain
errors - the Indictment, the name Of the
county IN one case being Incorrectly given.
He sued out a writ of error, which was grant
ed BY the Circuit Court Of Washington eoun.
~ The case was again argued before the
Court Of Appeals, who decided that the errors
assigned, ifany, were subject 10 demurrer OF
= motion IN arrest Of Judgment, and IS in this
ease thase were neither, tho writ az error
must be dismissed. The counsel for Davis
next made application 10 the General Assem-
bly, to pass an act to relieve Davis, the pro