The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-05-09
A Card.
TO THE PuRLIC

/
| The following remarks of the District Attorney
before the Superior Criminal Court Monday,
April g. 1875 need explanation 1 will, therefore,
for the better information OF the public, anss er
| remarks were:
Il take this opportunity to say, as the court well
| knows that took part in the prosecution Of the
original case Of arson to slight extent recollect
and your honor will recOllect the circumstances OF
that case After the argument the JURY chose to
turn a verdict of acquittal. In the minds Of the
Jury these were innocent men. Their verdict should
have ended it. But the accused went further. Your
honor knows how easy it is for one to 90 to the
There is particular to the point aside from
| the present one I never believed the men who
testified in the arson case committed perjury and
have consequently fixed the cases for trial. nor
have l ever learned of any evidence which would
cause me to have them tried could not with all
the evidence have ask twelve men to convict these
Communication of " undetermined" influence. In all
my official career defy any to put his finger on
dshonorable act and say now, II It Were not for
would take the writer OF this communication to
task for what he has written. In the situation am
placed only move nolle prosequi Of all these
SsThe court accordingly ordered nolle prosequi in
the case of James Gallagher, William Matte,
George Thomas and Mrs. Duffy indicted for per
The District Attorney of the witnesses for
the defense and he testified against the character of
was astonished to know that there lived among them
five brazen periurers There was no argument in
that case The able representative Of the State
satisfied that the State duped that the object of
the whole prosecution was money and revenge.
The character given to the principal State witness
T. H. Duffy by some of the best citizens OF this city
and by the District Attorney himself satisfied Judge
Braughn that his case was lost, and that he had
nothing to base an argument on.
The District Attorney cannot doubt the honesty
of that iury Every one in the court room during
the trial and the public expected verdict OF acqut
tai Not only in the minds of the jury, but in the
minds f our prosecutors we were innocent. hos
was willing to make affidavit to that effect If would
withdraw my charge Of perjury. 1.-The was innocent
wby did he not remain here and stand his trial like
an honest man The District Attorney knows how
or postponement of case. Our attorneys, J.
Casteanos, Esq, and Judge Abel, can testify to
that fact. Have not American citizens the right to
cause the arrest of criminals and 1t is not the sworn
dd mot know that the Grand Jury could be 20 easily
influence thought the Grand jury could mot De
trifed with. If these men were Innocent why Ud
the District Attorney indict them Why did he not
throw the cases out of court
If the District Attorney never believed the men
who testified against were guilty Of perjury why
did he set the cases for trial? Why did he fill the
court room with State witnesses! Why did he not
then and there nOle pros the cases. none OF the &C
cused but one appearing he shut the doors Of the
temnle Of Justice against me knowing that should he
poe pros those parties before one year had elapsed
would have had them re-arrested If the evidence
of twenty-five or thirty witnesses cannot convict 1.-THE
defense having none), now many aro necessary Inc
sentence does the work. 1T set at hber three men
who although far away from here for one year may
soon come back to figure in the records OF crime
By nolle pressing the cases the strlcI Attoney
does not prove them innocent. Twenty 1--WE or thirty
my9it b. CRONAN, JR.