The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1879-04-23

COURT PRocEEDfNGs.-U the opening
of Court on Tuesday morning of last week,
the Prosecutor moved the indictment agains'
Melick Stats, for the murder of Joseph Doll.
The names of thirty one jurors were called,
fifteen being challenged by the defendant,
and two by the State. Two jurors did not
answer. The jury as selected and sworn was
as follows:
Jacob Williamson, John N. Sharp, Ishi
Butler, Andrew Cashier, Thomas B0rton,
William F. Mathews, David Lawshe, Angus
tus Bonnell, Gervas Ely, Moses Robbins, Lo-
renzo d. Brewer, Asa H. Hocombe.
Mr.. Rafferty,, the Prosecutor, opened the
case to the jury, stating the facts upon which
the State would rely. The witnesses were then
called aud testified substantially TO the facts
that Doll was struck by a large piece of coal
while walking under the culvert along the
track of the Central r. Il. near Bloomsbury.
Doll the prisoner, and his brother johnson,
were standing above the culvert, and both
were drunk, but which threw the coal, and
whether or not it was with the intention of
injuring the deceased, was not very clearly
proven The prisoner testified that his broth
err threw down the coal, and the brother par
italy acknowledged it.
The case was summed up by Mr.. Perry and
Mr.. Bird on the part of the defendant, and
Mr.. Voorhees, for the State.
The Chief Justice charged the jury, in sub
stance, as follows
That Joseph Doll came to his death by reas-
on of a wound inflicted by stone which eth
f.,l ia
disputed. That respectable citizen in pur-
suit of his daily avocaton should be thus
hastily taken away, and that bis last moments
should be filled with pain and agony, is de-
plorable event. But we must remember, that
while we sympathize with his family, our du-
| ty lies in a different direction we are here to
| do Justice to the living. Is the defendant re-
sponsible for the death of this unfortunate
man? Who did the act 1t seems quite clear
that it is to be attributed to the defendant OF
his brother The facts seem TO exclude any
| other solution. johnson says he knows moth.
! ing about It, Melick says johnson did it,
| Which of the two did il There is the bur-
/ den of the case. can see nothing in the case
| which will make them both liable. There
seems to have been no corporation. Is the
defendant the guilty party 7? The evidence Is
very BRIEF and confined in narrow compass
1t is necessary to compare the testimony of
Rosenberger. Both are intelligent and tain
witnesses. They both place man on the
apex of the culvert. One says il was the de-
/ PENDANT, the other that it was his brother.--
/ T'rhe Court here read the testimony of these
two witnesses, and reviewed the corrobprat-
ing circnmsr ances the test mony IT Jacob
Vessels. and the words and actions of The
brothers. creating fhe impression that III his
opinion these circumstances pointed more to-
ri tf,i,p y tau f,ff
anti With regard 10 the degree Of guilt
If you believe the defendant, seeing and
knowing there were persons below. with bru-
tai cklessness threw this stone nvtr the Gu J.
vert, it would be murder ia the SECOND degree.
If the stone was thrown over withonf know
ledge that any one was in the road below, II
would be manslaughtcr.
After celebrating for a. ont 20 hours, the
jury failed TO agree. and were discharged.
Court will again convene this "wednesday,
morning for the trial Of indictments