National Republican., 1876-04-07
SHALL HiLLEek's eosFE ,aog STAND,
SUMMING UP BEGUN BY Mr.. WILSON
Merriek and Carpenter to Sp.ak Next


Mrs. Ottmsn and daughter were in attendance
on the session Of the court, and remained during
the day. Considerable interest was m snifested
in the case, especially as to the developments the
rebuttal evideacs OF the prosecution was expected
to make. The report was freely circulated the
night previous that the witness Weed, who had
been brought back on an attachment OF the
court had refreshed his recollection to the extent
that It was as late as June last that he receIvsa
the slo,400 from Ottman, and not earlier, as he
stated IN his direct testimony. The court ruling
against the right Of the prosecution 70 recall the
witness for the purpose Of re3uninS the cross.
examination, after he had once LEFT the stand
prevented any such testimony coming out, even
IL he did know It. This rumor, however, was not
given much credence. The court opened shortly
Mr. Wilson said the prosecution was willing to
proceed with the cross examination of Mr.. W eed.
Mr Cook stated that py some process Mr..
Journment OF the court on Wednesday last, and
was still in custody.
Mr.. Carpenter asked for the process, and after
It was shown pronounced that
1T WAS AN OUTRAGE,
and demanded the release Of Mr. Weed,
Judge Olin said that IL It was an outrage that
remained to be proven, and he was the one to be
held responsible. Time would prove who was
Mr. Wilson could not allow the occasion to pass
without refuting the statement Of Nj. r.Oarpenter.
Mr. Weed had been admonished not to leave the
court, and did so despite instructions to the con-
trbry. For this reason an attachment was issued
and the witness placed under arrest.
Inc deienIe reopened their case, and put IN the
John q. New, sworn: Knew Mr.. McCurdy; was
nor employed In the department of witness at this
The defense wished to show that the amount OF
the robbery had been made good TO the Treasury,
but was overruled BY the court.
the testimony Of Phillips and Hagerty when they
a. B. Weed, recalled: It was Mr.. Andrew Ell.
Crossexamined: He called on witness q bout this
matter I1st May. DID not know where he came
IRON. Had known him eleven years.
Tie prosecution then put in the following
REDUrTAL TESTIMONY:
Clarence 9: HELEN sworn, Res';ss in New
YORK city. Is member o. the stock Exchange.
anew Edwin a. Weed. his reputation for
truth and vsracity in Wall street Is very bad;
would not believe him under oath.
about thirteen years ago. Was in partnership
with him one year after the quarrel; did not
speak to him; would not allow him to do it.
business. Never knew Weed charged; him with
larceny Of the funds Of the nru Did not tratic
in stocks, and. when they resulted probably,
CHARGED the losses to the firm.
Redirect. Was born in this city, resided here
some time and was well known in the commu-
rity.
Mr.. Weed recalled for defense. Knew the
witness ellen; did not think he had any repa.
tation. Thought he was 9 man Of no inclination
Cross-examined. Had not been with witness in
seven or eight years. Never heard much said
about his reputation and knew very little about
II.
Deputy Marshal Phillips, recalled: Knew the
witness, (Hellen; his reputation was good in this
Cross. xamined: Knew nothing of his repu,a.
tion where he now lived, in New York
7. J. Philips recalled, for the defense His
testimony was overruled, which was to the effect
DR.. J. b. Blake recalled, for the Government:
knew the witness (HeIlep) very we'll; had known
him all his life. Was acquainted with his gen.
eral reputation; 1t was as
GOOD AS AMY eESTLENAN's
in the court. His character for veracity was un.
questioned.
CIossexaminsd: Never heard his character
discussed. Did not know hi, reputation in New
York. Gould not tell whether he was ever in
busincs3On his account in this city.
Redirect: Had known HELEN in New York
Had transacted business with him since he lived
VIM. q. Ford, sworn: Resided a. l72o 1 street
in this city. Had been engaged in business in
Is ana smpoa IN Rlssa as
York, in 1856. His reputation for truth and
versclty was good. Knew Weed. Had known
him since 1855. Met him in Bread street. His
reputation for truth and veraciIy was not very
good. HIS general moral character was not very
good.
Tenn, for an alleged violation Of the cotton tax
law in 1870; was not In prison an hour and was
taken to Montgomery, Ala; was never engaged
In the crooked whisky business: was IN the
whisky business on Ce6sr street; never had his
property seized for violation OF the revenue
laws: was connected with distillery, 1t run rve
or six months before It was seized; never knew
the cause Of the seizure; several other dstleries
were seized at the same time; had heard many
people say that Weeds character was bad.
Redirect: Furnished capital for the parties
who run the distillery, and knew nothing more
about Il. The cotton case was an allege cd VIOLA
ton Of tie revenue laws in regard to the paying
Of 2lI cent tax; bought the permits which we're
sals6le in the market. He was arrested, and the
case was noHs prG'equfsa without being brought
be fore q Jury.
The prosecution here rested the case, and the
testimony closed on both sides.
The Court decided that in the argument two
counsel on each side should be heard.
Mr.. Merrick presented
THE FOLLOWING PRAYERS,
which the counsel asked might be embodied in
the Instructions Of the Court to the Jury:
First. The confessions and statements of Hal.
isck have been allowed to 20 TO the Jury for wnat
one particular averment in the Indictment, viz,
that Halleck stole the money, and in considering
regard them Only in Connection with tbst p.r.
ticular issue in the case and none other what
ever that ia to say, they will consider these con-
as to whether Halleck stole the money or not;
but they must not regard these confessions and
statements at all In considering the issue as to
and no matter what they may be, or 70 what they
may refer, the Jury are TO regard them as not
being in the case, and as though they had never
heard them when they come 10 consider the ques.
tions as to whether Ottmsn ever received the
money from Halleck or any body else, and knew
Judge oiin said that he approved OF the
prayer in the main, but there was o few qualif.
cations that he differed from.
To find verdict Of guilty against the defendant
on the Indictment charztng him with receiving
from Halleck the money or notes described in
said Indictment, knowing the same to have been
stoien IT is necessary that they should be salts
ned, beyond reasonable doubt,
THAT THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES
the following propositions Of fact, VIE: First That
Hslleck stole the money or notes described in the
Indictment. Second. That Ottman knew that
osived the came. And II the Jury have @ any ~ res.
son able doubt as to any one Of said propositions,
then they must find . verdict Of not guilty on
The prosecution agreed to this prayer, and It
was granted by the court.
Third. Each Of the facts stated In instruction
guilt must be seyerally found BY the Jury beyond
Q reasonable doubt. The rule is that each fact
necessary 10 constitute the crime charged must
able doubt. All the facts offered 10 establish any
one Of these essential elements Of the crime must
be considered with each other, and with the par
when taken together Of conclusive nature, pro-
ducing in effect o reasonable and moral certainty
OF the truth OF the averment sought to be proved,
and must be Inconsistent with any other reason
able hypothesis than
THE TRCTH OF EACH AvI RMENr.
A reasonable doubt means in Law not mere
possible doubt, but that state OF the case which,
after the entire comparison and consideration Of
all the evidence, leaves the minds of the Jurors
in such condition that they cannot say they feel
an abiding conviction amounting to o moral GER
tainty Of the truth OF the charge. The burden Of
proof is upon the prosecutor. Every person 10
presumed to be innocent until he Is proved
to be guilty. II upon the proof offered there Is
reasonable doubt remaining az 20 the truth Of
any one Of the averments OF the fact constituting
the crime charged IN the Indictment the accused
Is entitled to the beneht Of it by acQu ttal for
it is not sufficient TO establish q probability,
though strong one, arising from the doctrine
Of chances that the facts charged are more likely
to be true than the contrary. But the evidence
must establish the truth Of the facts to reason
able and moral certainty-a certainty that con-
yipces and directs the nding and satisfies
the reason and juds ment ofthose whoare bound 70
ACT coNsclENrIousLY uPoS IT.
Fourth. That In determining whether Halleck
stole the money VI notes, the Jury will consider
the confessions or statements OF Halleck IN con-
nectien with the other evidence In the case; and
part Of said confessions or admissions Is enti-
tied, as such, TO as much credit from the Jury ss
another part, except where such part may be con.
tradicted or explained BY other evidence; and the
Jury ought not 70 disregard any part of such con-
LESSONS admissions, unlefe there are eui ciont