The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-02-16
THE TRIAL OF BAB.

Washington tomorrow respecting the
dispatches of Joyce to Babcock, Decem.
Der Sd, and the ono from Babcock to
Joyce, December 5, 1874, which have
not yet been admitted to the Court
They also gave notice to the counsel that
they would no. pass on with the admls-
sibilty of the Avery kilograms until the
defense had an opportunity to present
evidence that Avery's name was
known to the grand jury aud was not in
cluded in the indictment naming the
consplrators.
One objection TO the Avery kilograms,
was that it was shown that Avery was
in the conspiracy was overruled, as the
telegrams themselves tended to show
that
Alfred Bevis the distiller, was then
put upon the stand and testified that
Joyce showed him
The ''SyIph" Dispatch
from Babcock in December "A and that
his understanding tromit was that the
revenue agents were not coming. On
the strength of this information prepara-
tioDs were made to run more crooked
whiskey and when Joyce showed
the witness this dispatch
lie told him everything was all right
and to go ahead.
Witness continued: Joyce showed ,me
a letter about three or four days after l
saw the dispatch; l asked him for 1t and
he gave it to me; wanted to satisfy my
partner that it was all right; l got it in
the morning and returned it in the after
noon.
The defense objected to the witness
stating what was in the letter or how 1t
was addressed, or even the postmark.
The Court ruled that the letter itself
was primary evidence and secondary
evidence could not be admitted until it
could be proven that the letter could not
be produced.
Mr.. Bevis was asked the effect of the
letter upon him. The defense objected
but was overruled.
Witness said-The letter satisfied me
that it was all right and we would not be
disturbed in making illicit whisky.
L. b. Frazer, partner of the previous
witnes: was called, and stated that MIR.
Bevis showed him the letter, mentioned
in his Bevis'l testimony, i'll December,
1874, and the effect OF 1t was that their
house recommended making illicit
whisky. On the cross examination of
this witness, he said he was pretty well
acquainted with Hoge, the revenue agent,
tc whom the ring money had been paid,
bat could not tell just when he began to
serve the ring, nor how he was seduced
into its service. Witness received various
letters and kilograms from Hoge. Some
of the latter were signed by BiXby, re.
collected of going to Cincinnati to meet
him on one occasion, in response to II
telegram; Hoge kept the ring pretty well
advised of the movements of the revenue
agents, and WAS generally considered as
working conscientiously in the cause in
which lie had been retained.
The witness was shown eleven letters,
the writing on which he identified as
that of Hoge. but he had never seen or
even heard of the letters before,
Mr.. Samuel NJ. Barton, agent
or manager of Bingham Bros.
distilery, then took the stand
and testified to having contributed in
April, 1875, $4,000 to fund of $1,000
which was to go to Joyce. He had a
conyersat on with Joyce regarding the
purpose to which that money was put.
MIR, Storrs-Now, if it is proposed to
convict the defendant by this CONVERSE
ton, we object.
Col. Dyer-Well, sir, we propose to
do So
Storrs-Then we object.
Judge Dillon-Do you seek to show
bv this evidence, the declarations OF
joyce in connection with this transaction,
to implicate the defen dant?
Col. Dyer-l do
Col. Broadhead-Yes, sir. Upon The
principles of the ruling in the Mckee
case, in regard to osths declarations,
they are the same precisely. do not
see any difference subject to your ruling.
Judge Dllon-Yes, sir; the difference
would be this: In the Mckee case we
required the defendants connection with
the conspiracy to be established before We
received the declarations.
Mr.. ..Storrs-An important difference.
Mr.. Broadhead-l was going to re-
mark that did not understand the
Court to require Us 10 show that in the
Mckee case, but only told us that it
would be better that We had all our
own testimony in before introducing it.
Judge Dlllon-W Which was done.
Col. Brodhead-W hiCh was done?
Jucgc Dillon-Then we allowed tie
declarations To 90 in rs evidence.
Col Brodhead-Of course, if your
honors admit that that WAS the rnhng.
Judge Dillon-Tbere is no dispute
about the law applicable to this ques
ton. 1t is not contendei here by counsel
for the Government that anything Mr
Joyce said. unless on the assumption that
it is established by other testimony to the
salts action of the jury that the defendant
was member OF the conspiracy, has
anv eyideu.isl force against hin.
Now YOU have all the other tr,timony,
that is you nave It in tie shape Of tele-
grams and in tho shape Of statements Of
their own knowledge. Now then. tie
testimony As to the declarations of Joyce
OUeItu IOI tue IHAt l'hN'Hb la' I'SN VI
showing that the defence was connected
with the conspiracy, as counsel upder-
stood very well, rs not competent,
except on tie assumption o.
the defendants connection with the
conspiracy as otherwise shown. Now
the object OF this testimony, as it seems
to both of Us, is not for the legitimate
purpose of showing the nature of this
conspiracy but for the purpose, by indi-
rection, to do what the law will not per.
nit directly 10 be done, namely: To
show the defendants connection
with the Conspiracy. Now the
court has discretion in such
cases 10 ADMIT such testimony or testi-
many of this kind on the assumption thst
it may finally be ,howu that the defend
ant WAS connected with conspiracy, and
therefore the statements of one Of the
conspIrators with another in the e1ecu.
tion or ,uriherenCe OF The scheme would
be competent but it Is true the regular
course l.. and as the books say the sdvIs-
able course Is in cases Of this kind, to
require that connection TO be first
established. If there ever was