The daily gazette., 1875-05-19
]. THE COURTS.

CONTINUATION Oh THE CRIMINAL CAGES
CONVICTION oF THOMAS TrTUs, TIE IN
cEND1ARY-IsrEREsTINd rEocEEDrwaa,i
Especially reported for the GaEette.1
NEW CASTLE, May 1s, 1876.
The Court opened this morning at ten
o'clock, Judges Gilpin, Wootten and
Houston on the Bench. sEi . fti]'
The prisoners--England and Titus p
were arraigned, the Jury called, and
Chief Justice Gilpin addressed the coun.
sci for the defence in substance as fol-
lows: s,a- e@5
understand that you have taken 3
grounds Of defense; 1st, that the indict-
ment is fatally defective in not negativ-
ing that this stable was dwelling house
or public office where records are kept.
There is note in Archbold OF q case in
Massachusetts which seems to make
such q defect fatal, but upon a careful
does not establish this doctrine, for
there the indictment was sustained
The case in Massachusetts is similar In
character to that in this State. We de-
cline to charge the jury that this indict.
ment is defective. 1t the counsel for
the defense see fit to make motion ia
arrest Of judgment we shall hear their
reasons upon this motion. This will not
preclude you from stating your reasons.
Turning to the jury Chief Justice Gilpin
proceeded: Gentlemen Of the jury. this
is an indictment for burning or rather
fer setting on fire a stable situated in
the city of Wilmington, on the night OF
| the l4th OF February, of the present
year. Here tho Chief Justice read tho
statute.) There are two counts in this
indictment, one alleging that the prison
ers at the bar burned this stable, the
other alleging that they set it on arc
The question thus presented to you is
what is meant by setting on hrsP Uu-
questionably from the evidence there
was fire within the walls of that build
ing and hay, straw and other property
We're burned. There is no doubt Of that
fact. The question is now-whether. the
stable itself was on fire. There might
have been fire there that would not
have set the stable on fire and property
might be burned. / assume that there
was fire III the stable, but when you
come to the question as to whether the
|, stable was on fire you have no right to
: conjecture. There was the testimony OF
, the littie boy, John Crumlish, and OF the
negro man. There is some discrepancy
: in their statements; both say that tha
, h-y that was on fire was up against the
wall and against one or more OF the up
right wooden pieces. The negro said 20
: and the boy said So The boy spoke OF
! one of the uprights as being red with
fire. The negro says he went into the
stable before tive O clock aud put out all
! the fire that was there. The boy says
t he went into the stable between OF and
i, "A o'clock and that he put out the ttre,
. You must reconcile these statements,
Q II you can, and if yon cannot do this,
: you must take The one you think most
: worthy of credence and'reject the 9TH
:, er. What is meant by the statute is
. that the building or some portion OF is
y must be ignited. It is not necessary it
II should be in blaze bu. some portion,
}. however small, must be oa fire. Wheih
It er there was fire or not you are to do
: termine. The negro says the up-igL
d was nged-perhaps he meant scorch'
= ed. A Thing may be scorched and yel
not have been on fire. We say to you
q it must have been ignited. The boy
70 says there was hole in the roof-the
It negro says not. Whether there was Oh
b. not is for you to say, and if there Wal
as how did it get there. If you are salts
At fed the building was not on fire 1t Il
i'd your duty tosrender verdict of acquit
'e' tal-if you are satisfied it was on fir'
you should convict, provided you ar
satisfied these prisoners set II on ire
4, You may convict one Of these defend
w ants and acquit the other. L tnt
~ building was on fire who set it on fire
'Ia The evidence on that point rests upoI
~. the testimony of Moore, who stand
= implicated in this business. II the
~ are guilty he is an accomplice by Ia
90 testimony. He was with them neari
~ all the time, and it is fair to presum
!. ;. he was cognizant Of the whole matter
Io II You may believe the testimony OF a
80 n
~. crime committed which can be reacl
~, ~ cd In no other way than by such test
~ muny. 1t is customary in this countr
oL roboration to the evidence OF an at
in IN complice, for the Judges to advise
w. jury to give no credence to such test
-! mony, but where there is corroboratio
~, ~ of such evidence in facts leading to IL
facts may be used to fix the crime tn
Judges decline to 30 advise but leay
SJ the matter for the jury to desermip
y In this case YOU are to view Moore
~ an accomplice, but it does not folio
'o e that YOU are to disbelieve him. Til
" circumstance should make you eau
!. i;;o a.; GUS and you should examine his test
90, -. mony with great nicety. If you b
sSs eos lieve him your verdict should be o.
,cI | of "guilty"-if you disbelie him yo
Iv verdict should be one Of acquittal.
nav The Jury retired at about 10 minut
= "a of II and dreturned at 11:17 with q "
,se. dict of mot guilty" for both the q
ns;. PENDANTS. There being no furth
Of. charge against England he was d
r in charged. 20
Per. Inc next M case E;,,'S Ear,su .s,t;rs ~ fire
Sucks stable on the night of the IA
E,y of February, 1875. .iaQ'l.
N The Jury was empanuelled and I
ews he case - -.
rch, Josenh Long was called and testif
ght. !, srhstonce the same as in the pro,
q of d;ns coso He showed his connecti
The ,,-i,S EMoi,rd Titna and Moore, nm
600. ~'tn a4n 81. - yUoJlocton