The daily gazette., 1878-11-22

'oPecial 10 In G Gazette.
NEW CASTLE, DEL, Nov. 81, 1S78.-l
Inc proceedings subsequent to those pub
lished In our late editions of yesterday |
are AZ follows:
Mr.. Albert Townsend was called for the |
defence. The object of his testimony was
TO show that the witness, Mr.. Fisher, had
made the assertion that "the men dol
lard and Moore) were innocent" The
counsel for the State objected on the
point that the intent of the question a ade
the question itself an irrevelant one. The
point was that when the witness, Fisher,
said that he "didn't remember" he could
not he contradlcted by any subsequent
tes mony.
The Court ruled that If the statement
male by the prosecuting witness had
been to the effect-emphatic- that he
didn't say anything of the kind, then the
testlmoney could be admitted but the
evidence shows that the witness didn't re-
member, and, therefore, the evidence
proposed by the defence could not by ad-
mitted
Mr.. George w. Humphrey, was next
called. The witness was called to prove
contradiction between Fishers testi-
mony yesterday and his testimony at the
hearing before Mayor Viii eley in re-
gard to meeting Moore upon the New
Castle pike. The report prepared by him
for the EUeiy EUeniag states that he was
to meet Moore on the Philadelphia pike.
Counsel for defense urged that the wit
ness might refresn his memory by refer
ence TO the paper containing the report,
but the Coult ruled that this may not be
the original notes of the witness, ue could
not do so.
Counsel then put The question as
to whether Fisher did not say on that
hearing that he was to meet NJ oore on the
Philadelphia pike and the witness answ-
cred that he "conld not say positively"
The defense having no other testimony
the counsel for the State opened his argu-
ment. His remarks were brief.
Mr. Pennington followed by endeavor-
ing 10 show that the evidence given for
the State was unpotent; that thnre was
not scintilla of proof gwen 10 fasten
the crime in question upon the prisoner
in the dock
After the argument on both sides closed
In the tase of State VS.. Phillip Dollard, the
Court charged the jury substantially as
follows.
"The question is an indictment against
Phillip Dolard and Frank Moore, the lat
ter of whom has escaped. Philip Dollard
who you are trying is indicted tor having
on the 18th of April, broken into the wares
house of Peter Mccullough, and stealing
therefrom 200 pairs of boo $ and 400 pairs
of shoes There is rul- of law in the
case which calls for an expression of
opinion from the Court respecting the
testimony of William Fisher, who has
been examined and given evidence impli-
eating himself as an accomplice. This
case, like all others, must be determined
by evidence from the stand. In reference
to those questions that have been raised
we have but to say TO you that this man,
Fisher, is a competent witness according
Al. NJ
although his pardon fully exculpates him
from all consequences for the crime to
which he has been party in its commits
sion.
ave have further to say to you accord
ing to a well settled law IL is not advisable
TO convict upon the sole uncorroborative
testimonyof an accomplce. You can con-
vict upon the testimony of an accomplice,
but there should be some other evidence
besides the testimony of an accomplice-
some circumstances going to show the
prisoners guilt. Now it is alleged on the
part of the State from the evidence, that
there are circumstances which corrobor-
ate. That is matter of tact for you to
determine. We are not here to declare or
express our opinion. 1t is only for the
Cout to say to you what the law Is, and
1t is for you to apply the facts.
"The allegation is that they (the prison.
ers) broke in and took the shoes of Mr.
McCullough He (Mr. Mccullough stat
ed that he received certain informatlo on
from Philadelphia from parties, the names
of whom he is not at liberty disclose. Up
on this information he found portion of
his property in Washington and Alexan-
dra, and subsequently had the prisoner
arrested as one u tne partleS Implicated.
These are the facts.
"Now as the counsel for the prisoner
has asked the Court to say something 10
YOU in reference TO the proof OF the pos
session OF tbs property by Dohard. AS
10 whether there is any proof or not that
is a question for you. But we have o
say that it is not essential TO trace the
property to The possession OF the possess
sor, but if stolen property Is found III the
possesslon of man ills one eviuehce OF
auilt. AS stated by counsel for the State
and If stolen property is found IN the
nossession of the accused as his own and
he not giving a satisfactory account for
| its possession it is presumption ofgullt,
hut it is not necessary, in order to estab-
lish the guilt of the party that the prop
erty be found in his possession
| II know of no other matter Tor the
| court,s instruction othan than the ques-
lion of an existing doubt. If, IN your
mind there be such a thing the prisoner
~ ontitled to the benefit of that doubt
and he should be acquitted
| The Jury retired ana a1ter remaining
about fen minutes returned with YER
diet of "guilly." -. .a
nav as restitution money S24OO, and
costs. ON Saturday next to stand one hour
in the plllory and DO whipped with twen-
tv lasbas and be imprisoned one year,
At 1:45 Court took recess until D
o'clock in the afternoon.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
co,rt re-assembled at three o'clock.
Upon the joint application OF es; Messrs;
Rird and Pennington, respective coun.el
for Garraghy and Hagany ;itne case = ? carrs, ase
w. Georee Hagany and Thomas TARA
abv. was Continued over until next Term
" Gomrt and the bail of the respective
Tha ,p;tnesses in the Brickle- illlams
sbont;ng case were called and DISCHARGED
from fnrther attendance There 9eihg
mo- ,o hill found against Officer Brickie oy
the Grand Jury. +he tbeft of a
state VS.. John Britton for tne san tneI' ond q, q
CHARLES McGown. Sharpley for tne s Iea. ha.n
The animal some time sgo MaG na9 own pe1n
toten m out of the stable of Mt, McGo@nn' bnn
Who lives on the farm OF Nj, NJ, moph three
and was afterward found aoou' a'1 sha