The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-12-16
Trial of John z. Denison for COnspir-
aey with Samuel ID. Miller to y
Defraud.


aey with samuel ID. Miller to
Derraud.
The trial of John E. Denison, indicted with
Samuel ID. Miller for conspiracy to defraud
began in the Circuit Court on Monday, but
owing to the absence of an important witness
was postponed until Tuesday. The witness
was present at the opening on Tuesday
morning, and the case was proceeded with.
This case, as heretofore stated in the AID.
voCATE, grows out of walnut log swlndle.
Samuel d. Miller, as he represented himself,
came to this county about last May and tamil.
iarized himself with the financial standing OF
certain farmers in Manchester district. He
then started out as buyer of walnut logs,
and contracted to buy of Phanuel Wantz,
1 Philip J. Yost, Reuben Schaeffer, Peter Gettler
and Ferdinand Peterman, getting them 10 sign
a contract to sell. John +. Denison, the lat.
ter mart of NAV, or in June, opened a bill
brokers' Office in this city, in the room IN
which he had been operating in life insurance
for some time, and he got from Miller fnan-
uel Wantz's note for So, 600, Philip >. ost lo1
$1,000, Reuben Schaeffer's for $o,ooo ana
Peter Gettiers for $1,000 These notes were
dated May 26, 1882. and were drawn at Ninety
DAYS. and were sealed. These gentiemen1
heard that Denison had their notes, declared
them to be forgeries, and prepared to resist
nayment. Judge John E. Smith and hon
VIM. P. Maulsby were engaged as counsel
and Reifsnider & Fink were counsel Ior Zen
| ;son No effort was made to collect the notes,
and the matter ceased to be talked OF until
inst before court met the second MONDAY oi
November, when Denison was arresteu anu
bailed in the sum of 81, 600 for the action oi
the grand jury, by Justice Baitozer' OF MAJ nan
chester. Denison was duly Inolc1eu, anu h hoth
preliminary engagements OF couhsel On po.n
Sides the trial began as above stated, with
Judqe 7. Thomas Jones presiding, Judge MIL
Iar being absent and Judge Smith being dis
qualified Hons. VIM. P. Maulsby and Chas.
r Roberts assisted States Attorney u. n;
Henninq, and James A. c. Bond, Esq, and
Judge VIM. n Hayden represented the ira
verser. -
The indictment only charges Denlson and
Miller with conspiracy to defraud fhlrp D.
| Yost.
TUESDAYS PROCEEDINGS.
David n. Henning, Esq, made the opening
statement for the prosecution AFTER reaulls
the Indictment he said that the hrst coun5
charged a conspiracy, the second count ehargeo
that the conspiracy was to forge certain single
hills and the third count that it was to utter
certain forged single bills by Miller and Den
ison the traversers, in this case. lnthe spring
of this wear, Miller went into Manchester dis
trict and saw several persons in reference to
buying walnut logs. After purchasing ne got
them to sign receipts, with which he would be
able to satisfy his employers:
Some time shortly after Denison came to
Westminster and opened a room or ofhce
Miller came and sold him about Sl1 800 worth
of single bills He made no effort to collect,
but on the contrary undertook to assign them
to other people and raise money on them, ana
this was not done until Miller had LETT the
| 10 aft
nv Messrs. Roberts and Maulsby, who had
been counsel against Denison in civil case
sought to be instituted, and it was because OF
this fact that they were requested to assist In
the prosecution Denison was notlhed that
these bills were forged, and after such knowl-
edge attempted to pass them off as genuine
There was another similar transaction be-
tween Miller and Denison in PENNSYLVANIA,
which notes were acknowledged to be Jorge
! ries and were surrendered.
,Judpe HAYDEN here arose and asked do
you expect to prove an offence committed
some where else, in another State. MIR. Hen
ming said that he did. The Court SAID that
this is mere opening statement and that the
time for objection will be when the proof IS
offered. Mr.. Henning then said this is a bret
statement and that the testimony will be the
| fuller statement and will make known the
|
from the law books to show that conspiracy
is seldom proved by testimony as to direct
facts but is to be shown by differences which
are to be drawn from the circumstances.
Mr.. Bond for the defence said We mere
lv desire to emphasize our plea and would
reserve our reply until the States testimony
is in. He would say, however, that If any one
has been swindled in this transaction 1t IS the
client whom we represent.
The first witness called for the State was
John Greider. Mr.. Maulsby asked him the
question ''Did you go with man, calling
himself Samuel D. Miller, to Philip j. Yost's
at any time last spring and see Philip. Yost
sign his name to any paper, and II SO, what
was it?
Mr.. HAYDEN. for the defense, objected to
this question on the ground that Miller is
charged in the indictment with being Deni-
som s CO. conspirator-and that now his acts
and declarations are sought to be proved, to
be used against Denison, and that no acts or
declaration of one co-conspirator can be pro-
duced against the other until first conspira-
CIV has been proved l Greenleaf, S. Ill; 8
Greenleaf SIS. 92-93; Wharten's Grim. Law,
s. 1855; Roscoe Grim. Ev. page 415-(Ham
mond's case); Phillips on Evidence, note 1876,
page 1888.
Mr. Henning for the State, said that the
State is willing to accept the authorities offer
ed by the defense, and rely upon them to JUS
tifv the asking of the question. Miller and
Denison are charged as co-censpirators, the
acts of both must be proved to show the con-
spracy, for one alone could not conspire.
| That which we desire to prove is part OF the
res qestde, part ofthe whole transaction. The
authority of Greenleaf applies to hearsay
evidence, that of Greenleaf applies to EVIL
dence offered of celebrations or acts OF strang-
ers to the record. These can have no weight
for we do not seek to introduce hearsay evil
dence, and Miller is not stranger to the re-
cord.
Mr.. Roberts for the State, said that if that,
which was asserted by the defense as law,
were law and not mere assertion, then 1t would
be impossible ever to prove conspiracy I'M
less one of the conspirators would come for
ward and turn States evidence. The law
somewhat relaxes the rules of evidence in
cases of this kind, as is abundantly shown by
numerous authorities. Roscoe's Grim. Ev.
415-416, "a Eng. Com. Law Reports page
TAI; Darlington Payne 301. The acts of
one co-conspirator must be proved and then
the acts of the other, and then proof must be
offered to connect them.
Mr.. Maulsby said that in asking the ques-
ton, the object was to prove by this witness
that the paper which Mr.. Yost signed was a
paper relating to purchase of walnut legs, and
propose to follow up by proof that he did not
sign a single bill; that the traverser a few
weeks after the transaction produced single
bill signed by Yost and witnessed by this wit
ness, Greider; that Miller insisted on the log
contract being signed, and that this being
done, this witness, Greider attested it. We
propose to follow up with proof that this trav-
erser produced this single bill against Yost
and others to the amount of $l1 800 against
other farmers in the neighborhood, obtained
by the same means. We propose to connect
Miller with Denison between the time when
Miller got the receipts and the time when
Denison produced the single bills; that the
signatures which this witness attested were
not of obligations to pay money.
Mr.. Bond, for defense, said that when we
made our objection we thought we were invi-
ting the Courts attention to elementary prin-
ciples and not to new and original principles.
The question asked is Objectionable on the
ground of irrelevancy. We object on the
ground that that question is to the act of