The daily gazette., 1879-04-10
FIFTH EDITION.
THE EVAN RICE TRIAL.

trtc.t Court fhts MOrning-1he Case
Continued Until the June Term Of
Court.
The U. s. District Court opened at 10
o'clock this morning, Judge Bradford ON
the bench.
The roll ofthe Petit Jury was called
after which District Attorney Spruance
announced that he was ready to proceed
with the trial of Evan Rice, late cashier
of the National Bank of Wilmington q
Brandywine.
Levi G. Bird, Esq, one Of the counsel
for the defence, stated that he had issued
the usual orders for the presence OF the
witnesses for the defence, but two of
them were absent. One of these was
iner, who had failed to respond to
the subp1nas issued by the
Government, and the other
WAS lady residing in Baltimore. These
witnesses, the lady Ia particular, were
very material for the defence, and as they
could no be present at this term, the
counsel did not desire 10 run serious
risk In the absence of q witness so ma
tcrial. Mr.. Bird said he knew it was the
custom TO lay legal grounds for oontin-
uance, but when counsel state that II has
come TO their knowledge, and they have
been SO advised bv their client, that the
absent witnesses are material, and that
they did all In their power to secure their
attendance, and that all the other wit
nesscs are present except these particular
ones, he thought this was sufficient rea-
son 10 ask for a continuance OF the case.
District Attorney Spruance said he
had given notice TO the counsel for
the defense, on the 27th of Marcel,
that the case would be given to the Grand
Jury, aud the trial proceeded " ith at the
| present term of Court. II the defend
ants counsel have legal grounds for a
continuance, according to the rules Of
| practice OF this Court, IL would doubt
less be granted, but If the continuance
was applied for on the grounds stated,
he would ask that In accordance with the
regular course Of procedure the defend
ant be called, s. that he might qIes' ion
him in regard to the effect the absence
of these witnesses would have upon his
trial.
Evan Rice. the defendant, was then
called, and af er being sworn was in
terrogated as flows by Mr.. Bird:
Have you II witness material TO youl
defence who is absent?
| Answer-l have.
Do you think you can safely 60 to
trial without herp
do not.
Do you think you can have her here
at the next term of CouItp
Ausw-r-I do.
District Attorney Spruance here asked
the defendant for the names of the ausen
witnesses.
Mr.. Bird objected to this question. III,
claimed that only the fact OF the absenc,
of material witnes sses could be inquired
into at the first application for continu
ance, and that the names of the witnesse.
and the nature Of the facts they are ex
pected TO testify to, can only be asked
when second application is made.
MIR. Spruaace cortended that the alb
sence OF the material witnesses must b,
n fact, and fact determined by the re
suit Of an examination of the defendant I
not by his counsel alone, but by the OF
dinary methods by which the Court get.
at the truth, and that is by direct ant
cross-examination. What the Cour
wants TO know is, If this partcula,
witness Is absent; who the witness
Is, and whether any efforts have beer
made to secure her attendance, hel
whereabouts and the probability of get
ting her at the next tenn of Court. Mr.
spruance said his reccollection Of tn,
rules Of pr ictics was that at tho nrst ap
phcation for C continuance, the grount
for such application must be laid a
Ia az
That IL pertinent to the truth of tn,
claim. He was not satisfied that ther,
was an important witness livink in Bal
timore whom the Marshal had not beef
able to find. He did not propose TO asi
what the defendant intended to prov,
by these absent witness but he had
right to inquire their names
: VIM. q. Whiteley, Esq, said it wa
the general practice in Cour
to extend more Ienienc,
to the defendant in criminal cas-
than to either parties in a civil suit. /,
civil case, on an application for con
tinuance, there could be no objection =,
gkying the names of absent material wit
ness, but IN criminal case there wer,
good reasons why the names should no
be given.
After brief consultation with his AZ
soaiates, however, Col. Whiteiey, witt
drew the objections to Mr.. Spruance'
questions, and the latter contipued hi
exami nation of Mr.. Rice, who made Tn
following responses:
The abseLt witnesses are Mrs Louis;
bennington. of Baltimore and Or,oI
Adams. Mrs. Pennington lives in Balti
more. IL was within the past two month
when ! last saw her, but eas't remen
Der exactly. ! did not know then sh
was material witness for the defence
have made no effort to secure he
attendance beyond the usual subpoep;
She Is not relative of mine.
! last saw Orson Adams about three q
four weeks ago. Did not then know h
was material witness; have not com
municated with him since.
| Judge Bradford then stated that con
sidering all circumstances, the length {
the indictments, and the Importance {
the case, he would have granted a COZ
hnuance if counsel had applied witbor
laying the grounds, as he thought the
were entitled to it.
Mr.. Bird then addressed the Court I
favor OF continuance until the Septeu
ber, instead Of tho June term, on accouu
or the Importance of the case and IN
fact that the business Of the Count
Court, which commences on Nav I2tl
would prevent counsel from ri,
! Ing to this case the attention 1t Il,
manded. He claimed that no 10.
Woild result to the Govern ment, as MI
Rice's bail would be continued. and
gul lty he could be convicted as well 1
september as in June He onlv ask =.