The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1876-12-15
SPECIAL TERM.
Isaac b.
ARRAIGNED FOR
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
| The Special term of the Hancock
county court of Common Please, called
for the trial OF Isaac B. Charles on an
indictment for murder, in poisoning
cer.sin members of his family, conven-
ed Monday last. Owing to the want
of railroad connections Judge Pillars
did not reach our city until o'clock;
but soon after ascended the bench
and the Court was formally
opened. Some preliminary business
was disposed of, when the case of
Isaac B. Charles was called, and the
Court adjourned until Tuesday morn
ing at 8 o'clock.
SECOND DAY.
The Court was formally opened at
quarter of Lime o'clock. The Journal
entries were read and confirmed, and
the Court the called the case of Isaac
B.Charles. Whereupon theProse cutting
Attorney rose and proposed to submit
motion for a continuance. Defend
ants Counsel asked that prisoner be
produced in Court before the motion
was heard, and the Sheriff accordingly
produced the prisoner. The prosecut-
or then read an affidavit of Ralph Da-
venport, physician, who testified that
he was practicing physician; that
Susan Diefenderfer who was under his
charge, and who had been summoned as
| witness in the case was unable to at
tend, and would probably be SO for
several weeks. Her inability to attend
was occasioned by fall received on
Sunday evening, Dec. 10th. Sc
was unable to sit or walk; was very
badly injured.
The next affidavit produced was that
of Samuel H. Sturgeon. He was the
attending physician of III. W. George
of Ada, who had beea supoenaed in
the case of the State of Ohio against
Isaac B. Charles, arraigned for muir
der. Said George was quite sick and
would be unable to attend the present
term. His trouble was rheumatism
That B. F. Ream, who had also been
summoned as witness in said case,
was very sick, part of the time derang
ed, and required much attention. He
would te unable to be present.
HeLry Brown, Prosecuting Attorney,
then maze affidavit that these were
material witnesses, and that Prof. Cass-
els, of Cleveland, was also a material
witness, and that prosecution could
not satisfactorily go to trial without
them. They had all been duly sab
poeraed for the trial, and af1ant was
AZ vised and believes said witnesses to
o- sick and unable to attend. That
tie motion was not made for the pur
pose of delay, but in the interest of
Justice. Afiant hoped and expected to
be able to procure the attendance of
these witnesses at the next term of
court.
Defendants counsel arose and plead
ed that the accused was in Court and
ready for trial This was not the in
dictment term, but had been spe cially
assigned for the trial of this case. De
fendant had exerted himself and ex-
hausted his resources in getting ready
for trial and these facts should be con-
sidered. 1t would seem that Prof.
Cassels was the material witness after
all, and bis letter did not intimate his
ability to be present at the next term
of court, or that he could be present
} before warm weather. Ii should be
remembered that defendant had been
lying in Jail all this time, and this
effort to obtain continuance injustice
to him. Prosecution had had abund-
ant time to prepare for trial. Did not
|, think the witnesses whose affidavits
had been read could be very sick, as
their physicians were in attendance at
; court, and they would doubtless get
we'll. There were perhaps one hun
dred witnesses to examine, and it was
: reasonable to supPess soEe of t,.ep;
were acquainted with the facts sought
S to be proven by these The prosecu-
ton should, therefore, be required TO
show that some material points that
they could not reach through other
witnesses, could be reached through
these in order to justify u continuance.
. In the absense of this showing the
r court ought not to grant the motion.
should the rights of the defendant to
!. be heard in his defense be ignored, be
D cause the prosecution had failed to gel
Z its case ready? The defendant was
;. ready and demanded to be heard in his
g defence.
The court remarked that so far as
Prof. Cassels was concerned there was
= no good grounds for asking continu.
ance as his attendance could .e secured
by attachment. Besides, if the inclem
= ancy of the weather was the impedi
. ment in the way of the Professors at
tendance, the next term of court, which
!, would be held in February, would pre-
sent the same objection, at least in the
/. course of nature. it was reasonable Il
: look for such a result. So far as the
Other witnesses were concerned th'
uounds were tenable. But the coun
II FOR the State should fecollect tina
ylHh prepared for trial at the Febru
n ufkfy term, the prisoner could not b
I. held longer under the Statute witho1
pf trial, and would have to be discharged
wlThs eounsel for the State had a righ.
a however, to exercise its judgment il
D the case, and therefore the case woul
g be continued.
Counsel for defense then made
q motion to admit the prisoner to bai