New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-02-19
JUDGE DrLLON'S DECISION.
lGESERAL PRESS DIsPATCH.I

Ct. LoUIs, Feb. lS.-lIpon the opening of the
court Tor tIin 0f Gen. Babcock today D%tuct-Aor
ucy Dyer called George Gavin, Seer ary OF the Police
ComIli.eOurr IN order To shO" e bad record OF Ma
rili the lettrrcatrrr. The witness not present
CO.. Dyer then announced he had testimony IN re-
uiia 90 or Jldsc Porter moved that the Court direct
verdict for the psonor He spoke a considerable length
Tic ,yd then passed in review carefully and
slowly AMI aftci the review Judge Porter said We now
ask the acqua OF the deen liant al the bands OF the
c MT Alter brief pause the Court asked the defense
nthcy were prepared Ia prc-ent authorities. Judge
Fowler ,, piled IN the Affirmative, aud proceeded to rad
frorl tie books yarods cascs witch he claimed were
uracl r point oi law To- the now under consa.ru
ton.
Get Broadhcad. IA reply. said TIA: in order 10 sustain
the motion the drfcusc the Court must ssy there - no
testimony either direct Indirect, by which the jury
mihi Do led believe IN the Defendants guilt He cited
in the history OF the case tbs mailing of tho
letter by Joyce TO Bah,ocL, contain ng $500; the cor
rt pond,ncc wi'h one sf the conspTaors after
lie WIS indicted. through a third person; the
GIVING Of valuable information. at the sa.ne Time be
WIS protesiin. against the raids thc sending OF tile
sylph" dspatch informing the c0nsprators here of the
abandonment ~ raid before the agents VINO had been
d. tailed 10 make mat raid hid been appraised Of the
The he SAID, are al strongly pre-umptye In charc
ter that they must so 10 the Jury for decision Where
there are disputed s-ues It Is the province Of tho jury 20
e.ninc.
Tie court took The matter under advscment. On re
assembling in tie afternoon Judge Dillon delivered the
Oh OWING decision:
The Testimony on both sides ben- closed, the defend
AM counsel al tnc Court tOr pcrcmplory dlrrc-
ON 20 the jury 10 ac'ut tue dcitn ant ihc case ~hc
the Government SEEKS To max" a5aiist he dien lnt -
one which hrgv, perhaps exclusively, depends
upon crcum-ttn,a. evidence, which II IL cmin"
shows thc defendant hid crliihaI hho%"nsc ui
t.u conspiracy to dcirlud tue revenues II e loni-, ana
thn ue participated IN That Conspiracy. The Govern
mcut mas eouyl TO Inlica,c him. mdnly by me ltsi-
mony of Everest a. Ia the nj Hing of letter, under err
c'mslanccs winch Counsel Tor thr q ycinment mann
tan would au hjl-c Tie jury NOT TN nag ah. uu! "a
,uEut, win facts IN evidence, Ia uter tnnt
contained 1000 O and thatit wds - am received
10y dcri'pt iur gui,y pu iosrs hnd ~ certain tcle-
graphic d,s'n' hes 20 an rom tic lie endmi
The prrscn motion uyo ,c- question az 10 the rela-
tive powtG ana fnnrtons oi the court ana jury wnoh Is
great IMPORTANCE. Nnluuhteily ihe couit - Judge 81
are bound to receive and apply the law as tx lonnie ~
tnc In class of cases, the same ~ III me
otncs motion OF tie character OF the one mere ma !e -
vel known to the p."cico In felcril cpmts IL
f. olu,,a nj. say the supreme Court 81 tue United
states. to "a murer - The evidence. IL answers
iLc sine purpose. aud -hould he ,cstrd 10y tine
rules demurrer Ia the evidence alrnt7 not ony tho
hr, mieh fairy 1r reasonably ner theiefrOm. In de
c1ng npon the present molten it must De Assumed tnai
all crocd; Cor there r. qcs'ons fcat NJ
to tnc crcdolliy oi w1i"-s,S or Oh t"r proper d.c
tios o be- drawn from tie evidence, these are q'ics
tois for tie Court, but for tue jny, under tn,
ylce and INJECTION OF tie court tOunr' nave hiclr
10 ga Nhicn courts may nave IA erfcl'h VITA
lnT Ply ~ ,'r c , III, views ,ye eyressed
llo principles which must guido ~ have been
,e,tlcd by the supreme Count Of tho Unird
Sta 80, whose judgments have IN this court the
auihority 1no doctine or tho supreme Court
al the Uniie states Is well snp"n III iiickman agt
Jones, 0th Wallace, 197. TINS wls II ease 81 macioas
rlu-, cuon, ~ whlcn the Court pri'hpiorly nsruciei
inc jay o acqut twoo The drIcndslS ~ "a 1T ~ TINS
10 bc erroneous under the circumstances tnc Supreme
court oi the United >ta,ea says: -, A.,
Tirre evidence ag lust both OF them
Whether IL H. sufficient 10 warrant v,idct of guilty was
question Tor the JUry under ulr iiS iirdons oil tue
& r Tnc armed Jud &C mngirl tue duty of the Court
and inry, leaving t. tle jiry No discretion but To
oJoy the direction OF tne Court. Where there Is no
evidence, sucn q deioct Ia - that the law WA
such instruction may he properly demanded, ana
IL IL the duty oi the todu 10 give IT,
10 refuse is In tits case the evidence was Received
with objection and wac Deiofe ihe jury IL iehd-i 10
uaiutln the part o the panu Tue lssue "hcn tncy
were Try; Win, ter weak "a ftrong, II was er right
pass upon II; IL not proper Tor the Court t0 so rest
This part II the ca A. more than other fIou tine
II their dgmen the INSTRUCTIONS gwen overlooked
q line which separates separate spheres VI duty;
ihoKu oaiye they distinct ami 10 ID important 10
q night administration Of Jiscc Tat ttcy SHOULD ne
kent sU il IL much within tue province OF the Juiy 10
decide quest as Of Uc court Ia decide qileh-
tons ~ law. The Jury should take The law 80 lnd down
by the court and IL lu effect hut s app Gallon 10
the facts ana The facts themselves ~ Promr io .
To determine. These the che"Rs aud balances whch
give to isal by jury s value Experience nus apvNee
Tie Importance. They aie i"dspehsioie 10 'ne h'r
msuy and proper efficiency ~ system
The supreme Court In cases where tie racts are not
controVcred aud where the ifrienco 10 Dc drawn rom
them Is rt.n, necessary and undsputed or where
there "a no evidence lending TO necessary eie
Inent Ia the case, las held that the triai court may
Ieremporiy direct what verdict SHAH DC gwen, Lhls
bet w.cD fall WITHIN the rule nfst
stated those which for to decision oT thc jury
Is well illustrated the Railroad Company agains strut
az Wallace 657 In tLis case the Supreme Court held
that where any IL ID matter NJ JUDGMENT ana dis
crction OF sound inference what Is the deduson 10 DC
draw from ndIsputed facts, where different men
equally sensible and equally miartal woud make uii-
fereu such the law commits 10 the de-
csion Of this jury, under Instructions from the Court
The motion here must In ju igment, be denied for
E.rof Hla.a "A fanla