The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1875-07-18

THE PARKER Tn1L-AIR. C. D. MEIroS's
CLOSING ARGUMENT Fon THE DEFENCE. =
The Court met at 0 A. NJ. :
Mr.. Melton said that he thanked the
Court and jury for the indulgence they
had shown him; that he would try to he
brief, and to follow the bill of argument
ne had mapped out for his guidance;
that the jury wore sworn to determine
the issue joined between these parties
that there had been interpolated much
that was foreign to the real issue; TINT.
nevertheless, they must subject every
thing to rigid test rs to whether it is
pertinent thereto Or not; and by issue he
meant, first, whether there had ever bocn
IN the treasury the coupons the State
says are missing; second, if they were
there, have they been abstmcted? and,
third, if they were there and haye been
abstracted, did Parker abstract them?
that If this were criminal casc--which
1T virtually is, being for embezzlcmcnt-
Tor. lnrceny, tho State would have to
prove ownership and possession, loss,
and that tho defendant took the goods
lost; he claimed that n simple preponde-
rance of evidence would not do; that this
was civil cnse, charging fraud, and ne
cessarlly involving crime, and that in all
cases involving crime, the proof should
not only preponderate, but should ex-
clude every other reasonable hypothesis
than that of guilt; he said, too, that cir
cumstantinl evidence must point uner-
ringly toward guilt, before it would be
sufficient; that the greater the crime
charged, the more positive and conclu-
slve must bc the proof. AS to the first
point necessary. to be proved by the
plaintiff, viz: wtrc the coupons they
charge him with having nbstrncted ever
IN the Treasury, and in his custody MS
Treasurer? that this WAS the groundwork
OF the plaintiffs whole cnse, for if they
have not proved that they were in the
treasury, how can they prove that they
were abstracted from it? TINT the plnintiii
had charged that Parker Ind abstractcd
S45O,00 of coupons without specifying
any particular coupons, what class, NUM-
Der, denomination, &c. How could the
defendnnt meet II charge of having taken
that which Is not marked out and de-
hned! This the defendants counsel had
considered fatal mistake in the COM
plant, but if lie Ind required IN amend
ment, tho plaintiff would have had n
Longer time in which to reply, and Par
ker would have had to lio in jnil until
the fall; does the proof in the case sup
ply this omission? The jury must de-
terminc that. Were the coupons Owens
funded the ones? Owens had funded
only S207, ,OG0 OF coupons, then whit had
become of tho rest! This was all the
proof of the identity of the coupons they
charge Parker with having taken; this is
no cnptious exception, gentlemen, and
1t lays open and bare the entrance of the
whole accusation; but the plaintiffs
| counsel were not blind to this fatal de-
feet; they attempted to reach it by two
lines OF inquiry: first, they tried to get
klmpton to show the number, class and
| color of the coupons he had paid, to
what bonds they belonged, and if any of
those kimpton swore he had paid and
returned to the treasury as vouchers,
were missing, the proof of tho identity
OF the ones they say Parker took would
have been clear; second, what aggregate
amount OF coupons of each particuln,
class OF bonds he had paid and returned
as vouchers; had they proved either OF
these two things, it would have been suf.
boxes of coupons were all right and that
there was n deficiency in Kimpton's =
boxes; therefore every particular coupon
described by him in either of the above
ways hat was not i'll his boxes, would
have accurately defined the ones they
charge Parker with having taken; they
should not have expected Kimpton to be
able TO answer such questions, rs the
task of keeping n memorandum Of the
class, number ana color of each of the
millions of coupons he was called Oh to
handle, would have been superhuman
and kimpton did not answer either OF
these questionable could not tell, be.
cause he did not know; Kimpton could
only tell how many coupons he paid
each month, and the whole amount lie
paid altogether, which aggregated s913,-
66s, while their own proof showed
81, 672, 900, nearly double the amount he
says he paid; the jury could see the
defendants difficulty; he did not know
what he was charged with having
taken; the jury remembers the suspen-
Tsion of the Court when the plaintiffs
counsel heard Kimpton' s testimony read
why they discovered that they had NO
paoof; they had consultation of war
about it, and resolved to como into Court
md risk their chances ut n vcrdict-to 90
it blind; for it would not do to give up
than offar fbax, 1o,l 1,oJ