The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1876-02-19
BABCOCK'S TRIAL.
THE TESTIMONY ALL I'm.


ST. LOUIS, Feb. IS lon the conclusion of the
session of the court LAST evening, District At
torney Dyer announced that he would have
some rebutal evidence TO offer this morning,
and upon opening to-day George GAVIN, Secre-
tary of the Board of Police Commissioners,
was called for the purpose of showing the rec
ord of Magll, the carrier who testified to re-
turning two letters to Joyce, but the witness
did not answer and the District Attorney Ina
mediately announced that the government
would put ia no rebuttal testimony. The case
was then declared closed so far as the evidence
was concerned.
Judge Porter asked permission to address the
court and spoke at considerable length, giving
the grounds on which he asked the court at
this stage of the trial to direct verdict of &C.
quittal.
The conrt asked the defence if they were pre-
pared to present authorities.
Judge Porter replied in the affirmative and
proceeded to read from books various cases
which he claimed were parall4l in point of law
TO the case under consideration.
Broadhead and Dist. Atty Dyer opposed
the motion to dismiss the case. and after re-
Spouse by Porter the Judge took the matter uL-
der advisement.
On the Resembling of the Court, Judge
Dillon overruled the motion for an acquittal of
defendant at the hands of the court, saying the
motion must in our judgment be denied for two
reasons:
First. there are facts which are not undis-
puted, for example those relating to the letter
testified to by Everest TO McGil
Second, the proper differences to be drawn
from the kilograms, and other facts are not so
clear and certain that the court can declare
their effect as matter of law. The doctrine
contended for by the learned counsel for the
defendant IT applied to this case would require
the court to disregard the well settled rules
laid down by the United States Supreme Court
| in the case of Hickman VS.. Jones, above cited
| in which the tribunal held that the constitu-
| tional province of the jury under instructions
| from the court extends to the right to decide
| upon questions of fact in weak case as well
as in strong case; to analyze the evidence be.
fore them and determine the weight to be given
| to it and the several facts thereof.
Some discussion then took place as to the Or
| der in which the arguments should be made.
| The rule of the court had been for the defence
to open and be followed by the prosecution,
but both Judge Porter and Mr.. Storers thought
| the opening should be by the prosecution. The
case rested on elrcumstantial evidence and it
was but just that the defence be advised as
to what portion OF the great mass of testimony
which had been adduced, and large part OF
which had been rendered irrelevant since its
| Introduction. AS the prosecution had the ter
ribe advantage of the closing argument they
should not complain of being required to dis
close their case SO as to give the defence an
| idea as to what they would have to answer.
Judge Dillon did not think the rule good
| one and in view of circumstances it seemed to
| both himself and Judge Treat, out just that
prosecution be required to open In order that
| defence might not waste time in guessing on
the mass of testimony the prosecution required
| He would therefore suspend the rules as mat
| ter of justice to the defendant.
Col. Dyer said that he had not expected this,
| and had not prepared his argument. He
therefore asked for an adjournment till tomor-
| row.
Judge Porter joined in the request as defence
was equally unprepared and Judge Dillon &C.
| guessed and court adjourned.