, 1880-12-16
THE RALPH CASE.

Tho trial OF William j. Kaph. for subqrnntion
ofperJnry In tho Ayor match .bontl tlAe, wis rc-
tamed yestGrdny morning III tho United States
District Court. Chnrloy Reed. tho defendants
attorney, Ind roturslrI from his BRIEF vncutlon,
md dappcnsed IN his usuul Koul spirits. Ralph
himself took tho stAslI, aud proGecduh to testify
ID his own bchRif Or course he didn't know
xha WINS III thu al'idnvlt to tho bon!, mud didn't
know that his wife signed tho boud untllliInlo SO
ia[ormtd him. Witness wont to judge Dhn4a,
WHO examined him 9ctlcrnlly as tn his wifc's
property. i1n1e begun the negotiations by ro-
marking thAt II ho could get u botll ho would
staft mntch-fnctory Mt South Englswood. mud
pFon1s'g to rent q tutruYo- fAotory which stood
upoH airs. ltalpt,'s property for the purpose OF
eAscrtlng 1t into tho future Inatch.fnGtory,
Neither he nor his vito wns psoIniBed nnything
otrec!scd nnyth',Y for signing tho bond.
uh the ecross-oxanlinut ton, halph tcstEtlud that
he WIS uUt In tho habIt OF going OH bonds, mud
xhen several cascs wero mentioned In which ho
hal slgnrcd us bofltlsmnu ho uniformly answered
"lllsr0nlpulber." u
This clusctl tho Testimony, and tho case was In
iaa!n to 10 argued hcforo tho Jury. Con. Lenko
vent over tho testimony ut Bolno length, cou-
uastlrg tho 0,l-papcr showing In tho au!tiaylt
Sa tl0 ro4i fnots regarding tho alleged pr0p-
ety ~ disclosed by tho avl'ipncc, and ealn!ng,
a1lsiel. that botll 1ullph and Ills wIfu knew tlo
,a usss Z, bo falso whcn tho tor'uor procured
VI. Iced went Ut Tho Jury by romarking that
iva;rdlet verdict Q! guilty lisall.st llulph wins vIr-
who wis 10. On Till i. is % Mrtcuar lslS: cso. a,,a
ae Was therefore not porsnttcd, utiler th3 OPP
s,nt, .atsoss g hnrsh a1i unjust lns. TO tell htr
sinI5; uuder thu ssAtutu, 1t l1luSt to shown tut
afs. lta!ph Awere to whit sAe did nut believe To
Sr " !r.lp ai.d ths, Mr. Reed c!to,'ed was a.i
ts absence Of my nolivu, such t.s .it 10 cont-
tl uil atrjtiry, n,lll tho u0verhlncnt'a failure to
aaS tao% nlly aa a1, somewhat rgoiy-na9nItlol
W,ois rSa1 whom tho nill9yit wis n,Mtlo ns u,
~ tto!aes either lalph or M.. italph bundled him
.oIa!., GIr!. leake. in closing, swopt uwny tho lcgal
,sstsl 1, thu statcncnt roRassllug tho ulie9ol
"eeRheas Ut thu notury's testimony.
IUlxlE nLuiAlETr
s9qeeedct sqedct to ..e!iyor hs clnrgo to tho Jury Tho
tS".!e!iAsit WIN uhtrEod with subOrn1NK hla wtfo
sds"m'! sd'!t!l H., perjury Taa very statS,'lYnt u tho
saAt Nus purtlNts ns l,eltlnlis Il Ctln.e III Tho
tud4, tuh!!n Asisrt could be guilty nr. IT was bsll
nru,,K n.Kh fnr person 10 commit rorjury, bur to
sn'rellllS Fnr 4 husbAtld to prouutB Ills vito to
ser ~ ner hou by 1ts commission, WIS III hiRl, nu
s,se mstt' ora!ly coiasldurt, Us could perhaps be
IN ntttf ~. ttntcucntpt tho several allegations
;ury H9 ~ mi!'as!ngnt. tho Court sei,nskgtt tat tho
iwo ota!tgs: tltat, thnt Mrs. llph wtllfully md
n, n,eTxnEly, under uath huA staol whit sllo did
ess ss1 10 ns frSo; 70; nd spgo 1h9t tG
a." tnae'pil AIlu ncrossury did HOT appay III tlia
se. . =. y wls q substantive olFuuso Ititlur tho
o csno :Gf of fy psrry IL s% talstsee
@ eGs,S ~ WV ,'o necessity to convict tho principal
vr,., vt .ae person wtp committed the arlnlo. In
t1i"s ur stuu, y 10 ,c',muiitul, Tlat nat-
Sny M n''.ist l'taoa ". lntlopendent footing. Tno
sarG ~rre s,tislir1 that Alrs. ll,llh bud sat..
hea sntaresfI ,ae f5u or wiful perjury, wus whether