Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1881-05-19
LOCAL NEWS
COURT PROCEEDINGS.
Guthrie Convicted and Sentenced
The Cases OF Carberry and Rioters

Court reassemDled al D p. M yesterday
week and the Guthrie trial was RE-
sumed.
DIR. T. A. Keables testified to his being
called upon to treat the little girl, Annie
Bell Davidson, the victim of the lecherous
Guthrie. He found her nearly deliri0us
made an examination and prescribed for
her.
Thomas Murray testified to hearing
Guthrie offer to pay Mrs. Davidson "to
settle this" He took Guthrie by the
arm and led him up to the corner and
there Guthrie confessed that he had in-
decently assaulted the little girl and ex-
pressed his desire to have the matter
hushed up, fearing that the report would
injure his business.
BENJAMIN Smith testified to seeing
Guthrie coming from Mrs. Davidson's
house, that he hailed him and asked him
what was the matter, and that Guthrie
said you don't believe | would do
such thing, do your
Sergeant Jones testified that in conse-
auence of the complaint made by Mrs.
Davidson, he, with officer Thomas, started
in pursuit Of Guthrie who ran up Spruce
street towards the Brandywne. He
ordered Guthrie to stop, and, as he did
not do so, the witness drew his revolver
and fired, directing the muzzle of the
weapon towards the ground. AT this
Guthrie turned and fired at his pursuers.
Witness then fired two shots at Guthrie,
who returned the shots. At or near
Ninth street they lost sight of Guthrie.
Annie Collins, Whey Murray and Mrs.
Annie Reilly gave corroborative testi-
mony.
Chief Maxwell testified to going, in
uit Dti,ur Rri,,lrI., IA,
for Guthrie, who had been arrested in
that city in compliance with a telegraphic
request to do 50. On the way back
Guthrie made a confession, alleging that
the girl tempted him.
Officer Brickle corroborated the testi-
mony of Chief Maxwell.
The State closed here and Mr. Lore
opened for the defense, saying he would
prove there was no attempt at rape ; that
the child was not injured at all, and that,
after the alleged oiiense she still wanted
to go to church.
William Erwin was called and testified
that little Annie was quite sOciable and
friendly in her behavior toward the
prisoner while they were in the front
room together.
Mrs. Hester Bartlett testified that when
she saw the little girl shortly after the
otlense was committed she was not crying
and only seemed to be worried about her
clothes.
After calling Officer Cloud to show
discrepancy between Annies testimony
before the Mayor and before the Court,
the defense rested.
The State then called Robert Davidson,
father OF Annie, to contradict a point
brought out in the cross-examination of
II 4 A
Erwin said to him, at certain time and
place, that if he was the girls father and
had known what Guthrie did he would
have broken his head. Mr.. Erwin had
positively denied saying this.
Sergeant Whelan was called to set
Annie right on the discrepancy to which
officer Cloud testified.
Court then, at 5,45, adjourned until
Thursday morning.
Court reassembled at 10 o'clock, a. m.
Thursday.
The Court granted the application OF
Austin Harrington, ESD, for continu
ance until next term of the cases of
William Miles and Horace Coulter, col
ored. These are known as the riot cases.
Three celored boys, seemingly from II
to Ii years old, named respectively Den
mis- Lewis, John Manloye aud William
Sess, indicted for breaking into the
grocery store of George w. Gray, Will
mington, and stealing therefrom 800
cigars, 10 pounds of tobacco, five pounds
of mixed cakes and 10 pounds of sugar,
were arragned. Dennis plead guilty"
the other two mot guilty"
The trial of William G. Guthrie was
resumed. The State called T. Ellwood
Singley, who testified positively that MIR.
Erwin, at the preliminary hearing before
the Mayor, swore to seeing Guthrie take
hold of the little girl and pull her down
two or three steps. Erwin had positively
denied giving such testimony.
This closed the rebutting testimony ON
the part of the State and the defense
called BENJAMIN Smith in rebuttal, but,
after argument, the Court ruled the pro-
posed contradiction inadmissible.
Mr.. Lore sent for William Erwin and,
upon his arrival, argued at length upon
the admissibility of testimony to rebut an
attack on witness veracity.
The Court decided to allow Mr.. Lore to
introduce his evidence.
Upon this, AttOrney-General tray
claimed the privilege of introducing other
witnesses to contradict Erwin, and called
Policeman Chambers who corroborated
Mr., Singley's testimony.
The defense then called Policeman
Cloud and Benjamin Smith, who testified
that they did not hear Erwin use the
language attributed to him by Singley
and Chambers. Mr.. Cloud went to the
extent of saying that Erwin did not say
anything of the kind.
William Erwin was called and asked /
Davidson had not said to him OH a Ger
tain occasion that there was nothing IL
a
The question was objected to and the evi
dence ruled inadmissable at this stage o
the trial.
AT 1870 the evidence was all in am
the argument began.
Deputy Cooper spoke for nearly Al
hour, explaining in the course of hi
speech the absence of Miss Josephin
Bartlett. lie said that she had been sui
pGnaed by the State, but the summon
was returned non est the defendant
counsel had spirited her away.
Harry Sharpley, Esq, replied for tn
defense. He said that Miss Josephin
had also been subppnaed by the pri'
oner's counsel and they had made MOI
strenuous efforts to find her than TIL
State had.
When court reassembled Thursda
afternoon, Mr.. Lore followed Mr.. Sharple
for the defense, prefacins ms arsuih"i
by asking the Court to charge:
|. That the intent of the prisoner
commit an outrage on the girl must
clearly proven to warrant conviction.
2. That such n crime committed upo
a child over years old is not rape und'
the statute OF 1871.
3. That if the jury believe the prison'
only meant to play lasciviously with u
child he cannot be convicted of the GRIN
for which he stands indicted.
Mr.. Lore spoke for an hour.
At 4.15 Attorney General Gray bega
the closing argument. He also spoke i
an hour, regarded the statute of 1871
creating n new otfense under our law
but not as changing the common law
to when or when not consent is to be il
piled At common law consent is co
clusively presumed to be impossible wi
child under 10 years of age.
But, should the Court take difere
view, he asked that it charge that the
is great difference between consent al
submission, especially with child
such tender years.
When the argument was ended, Chl
Justice Comegys said that the statute
1871 changed the common law in this