Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1875-04-15
The Day Case.
rrs CONTINUATION IN THE o. q. counT-ARduNEN1
OF MI. HARRINGTON IN OPPOSITION TO THE NO.
TON ZOE NEW TRIAL.

|
lrs CONTINUATION IN THE .. 8. counT-Anauxrx'
OF NE HARRINGTON IN OPPOSITION TO THE NO
T1oN ToR NEW TRIAL.
The motion for new trial In the Day case VA
further considered Monday, 8. N. Harrington
Esq, resisting 1t. He spoke Of the time wher
the defendants became the sureties Of Mr.. Day
Of the late trial, characterizing the charge ~ I
quasi criminal one, and insisted that Mr.. Day
y entitled to the benefits Of tho YER
dict Of ac1uittal which had been given
him, saying it would be utterly impossible fol
the defendants to attempt to contend with the
United StAtes in 30 many suits and would DO f.
nAncial death to them. Should = second jury
render like verdict it would be mere waste of
time and money and il adverse the defendants
would be Obliged to wait for hearing before
the highest tribunal Of the land
Returning to the charge OF the counsel for the
! Government that the verdict WAS against the
charge of the Court, Mr.. H. said that where
there 10 any question OF account or conflict OF
testimony, aud IL is left by the Court to be de-
termined by the jury, scan such a verdict be
said to be against the charge Of the Court ~
Where there are facts left to the Jury upon
which the Court does not charge, which go to
the integrity Of the Governments evidence, and
they return verdict for the defend
ants, can that verdict be against the
charge? Mr.. H. then read from the Judges
charge to show that the questions Of fact we're
left to the jury aud argued where the whole
subject Of payment was one of fact and verdict
was given for the defendants that it cannot be
said that such verdict il against the charge.
10 the reason that the verdict WAS against the
evidence, Mr.. II. said that il there was conflict
Of testimony that reason does not apply, and the
verdict should not be questioned, but were the
evidence all on one side this might be good
reason. 1t ia not for us 10 say upon what the
verdict was founded it is sufficient to indicate
but one ground Of disputed fact or conflicting
evidence, but will rest the whole case on two
points, viz
lst. The credibility Of the Government tran
scripts. 1t cannot be doubted that transcripts
are made evidence, but only pri'aa Jdeie, and
the Courts are authorized by law to grant judg-
ment OH them but ii there arises on the face
OF them conflict Of evidence it becomes matter
of fact for the jury and they are the judges
eminent brings supplementary transcript
here to vindcate the others and we find
they /. have put in this supplement
arbitrary figures, made up after the
Jury WAS sworn from the accounts running
through the whole Of Mr. Days term. We al
legged that these figures forced the. Governments
balance and diecredited the transcripts, they
went before the Jury with our impeachment Of
them on these very items and no satisfactory
answer was made to the errors we alleged.
MIR. H. spoke at length AZ to the unsoundness
OF these papers, taking mum erous items on the
supplementary transcript, showing its errors and
defects, and contending that they were arbitra-
ry figures forcing the balance Of the Govern.
end the motion but he presented another point
II is well said that this is question Of payment
The first thing to be determined is
what Mr.. Day is chargeable with
The question Of debt Was Of the first i'm
portance. The debts were made upon his ORR
ginsl receipts aud discrepancy appeared in the
debts on the face Of the account being unas-
sessed penalties charged on collectors account
S22, S65. As, but on the Government account
I'll, 1928 "a. Attention was called to this dis
crepsncy early in the trial. The Government
clerks present At the trial made no explanation
of it. They knew it was vital point in the
case, aud that it was necessary
in order to establish the debit to put in evidence
the original receipts. After eight days examinA-
ton in the Department 1T Warrington the Gov
eminent forwarded only three receipts, aggrega-
ting about $50 600 90 and failed to make up tho
TRANSCRIPT debit by $4,000 aud confessed this
failure before the jury.
After recess, District Attorney Higgins re.
piled, discussing the subject Of "Unsssessed
Penalties" ut great length. He said that it had
been contended that because there WAS great
deal Of evidence, aud because the Court had left
the facts to the jury that it had CIV
en- up all right to review their verdict. Tne
charge was read in which the Court
said to the Jury that these transcripts were for
them to pass upon, but it alae said that the facts
were proven and were not to be set aside by
mere attacks of COUNSEL yet he had cited au-
thorities which said that If such wero the case it
surrenders the power Of the Court. Because
they found a mistake of $40 90, they were not
to disregard the whole of the transcripts.
He sontended that the $19. so was stated in the
original transcripts in gross, and in the supple.
mentary transcript in net. He said that he did
not consider that these accounts needed any
vindication at his hands, that he saw no dispo-
sition on the part Of the. accountants to force
balances on officers Of the Government or their
suretes.
At o'clock Mr.. Higgins concluded his Rrgu-
ment and the Court adjourned Judge Brad
ford will probably render his decision IN a few
days.