The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-12-16

the following objections were made tnereto-
LIST. Trayerser objects to. offer of proof by
Greider because it is offered to prove BY
him the contents of three written or printed
papers; that these papers are themselves tht
best evidence, and that no oral evidence shoulc
be admitted to prove them. al - = =
End. Because it is an attempt to introduce
acts or declarations of an alleged conspiratol
or stranger, without first having proved the
conspiracy alleged in the indictment or the
traverser's connection Herewith, and without
an offer by the State to follow with evidence
showing at least a prima facie case; that there
was such a conspiracy as alleged and that the
traverser was a party to or connected with
said conspiracy.
These objections were accompanied by nu
merous other objections to various items II
the offer of proof. f,aI5-ttaa
The defence then raised question, which
they contended should be decided in its favor,
and that so decided it would end the case.
The point made was as follows: SIT is re-
peatedly stated in the offer of proof made by
the State that the single bill or writing obliga-
tory mentioned in the Indictment was a false
and forged single bill, and that in the bill Of
particulars in the case, as well as in this offer
of proof, it is claimed on the part of the State
that the conspiracy alleged in the indictment
between Miller and Denison was to procure
the signature Of Yost for the purpose of writ
ing over it said single bill, and that said single
bill was false and forged; that according to the
States own statement in open Court, there
fore, the alleged misdemeanor, charged in the
Indictment and the several counts thereof, has
merged in the higher crime of felony.
The State, through Mr.. Henning, expressed
the opinion that this is not the stage of the
case to discuss this question; that the defence
had the opportunity to take advantage OF 1t
on demurrer, and that now it would be matter
of proof, and could not end the case until the
verdict should be rendered.
The Court said that it thought the question
depended upon the proof that might be intro
duced, and its effect would be felt in the find
ing of the verdict, and suggested that argu-
ment be had on the objections to the offer OF
proof -i - ia 80 b"
Mr.. Bond, proceeding to the argument,
said that the offer must reachnp to and satisfy
the court that there is a prina facie case OF
conspiracy before acts or declarations can be
admitted. Where the existence of written
contract is alleged, that contract must speak
for itself; the papers themselves must be pro-
duced in Court, or explanations be given why
they cannot be produced, and their absence
be accounted for in legal manner. Grant
ing that the contract and receipt passed into
the hands of Miller, there is no assurance that
they did not pass from the hands of Miller to
the hands of some other parties, and it does
not follow that they could not have been OBJ
tanned. If it can be obtained it is their duty
to produce it or account for its absence before
secondary evidence can be introduced. The
State offers to show acts and declarations of a
stranger to the record or an alleged o-con-
spirator, without any offer to follow up by
proof of conspiracy and the connection of the
traverser herewith. The States offer should
be an offer of facts to satisfy the Court that
there is prima .tacie case of conspiracy.
The State offers differences and not facts.
We object to the offer because it alleges that
Denison pretended to purchase this single
bill. If it is in the power of the State to say
that John E. Denison did not pay his money
for this single bill, it should be so stated in
the offer. If Denison did attempt to utter
what he knew to be forged single bill, it is
important to know where the attempt was
made; if made in another state it can have no
effect in this case. The State is asking this
Court to receive in evidence that Denison of
fered to sell lands in Pennsylvania. The State
offers to show that when Denison pretended
to purchase this single bill that he pretended
to purchase single bills of Wentz, Peterman,
Gettier and Schaeffer. The traverser is in
dicted for conspiracy to cheat Yost and not
Wentz, Gettier, Schaeffer or Peterman. II
this allegation be true, it is of independent
facts not connected with this case, and al
though there may have been other conspira-
eies, they do not prove this conspiracy, nor
can they be offered in evidence to show this.
l Arch. Grim. Practice and Pleading, 1858.
At this point in the argument the Court
said that it did not understand that it
was called at this stage of the case to
rule upon the admissibility of each particular
point of evidence embraced in the offer of the
State. The only question upon which the
Court considers it now necessary to rule as to
whether the State has sufficiently opened up
its case to the mind of the Court to admit tes-
fered in evidence, which are to be connected
with the traverser by further proof The
Court, therefore, overruled the objections
made by the defence, and exceptions to the
rulings of the Court were reserved.
The witness, John Greider, was then called
to the stand, and testified as follows: ''Some-
time last May | went with Samuel D. Miller
to Philip j. Yost's, and saw Miller and Yost
talking together; did not see Yost sign any
paper; did not see Miller and Yost together
at any other time; l, on that day, at John
Crumrine's saloon, in Melrose, signed my
name to paper that had been signed by Y ost;
l did not see Yost sign it; Samuel D. Miller
had the paper; Miller never asked me to wit
ness any other paper signed by Yost except
the one at Melrose." H
Mr.. Maulsby then asked the witness: "Was
the paper to which you signed your name as Q
witness note or single bill of Philip j. Yost
to Samuel D. Miller, for the payment of two
thousand dollars?'
To this question the defence objected. The
objection was afterward withdrawn, and the
question was temporarily waived.
The witness then resumed: 81 first saw
Miller the day before | signed my name to the
paper; he employed me to take him around
the country with my horse and buggy, saying
that he was drummer and was buying walnut
trees; Miller is about feet 6inches high, toll
erably well built, weighing about 1876 or lac
pounds; his hair was dark brown in color and
his complexion was dark; | think he wore a
moustache; do not remember particularly
how he was dressed, but think he wore sack
coat and SLOUGH hat; he spoke both English
and German; went with Miller the same day
to Peter Gettier's, Ferdinand Peterman' S and
Reuben Schaefer's; Miller did not ask me to
take him to these places, knew his business
and took him where thought he could buy
walnut logs" ., ,.E , .ia.H a.. -
Mr.. Maulsby then offered to prove by the
witness that on the same day on which he
signed his name, as stated by him, to paper
which was signed by Yost and taken by Mil.
Ter, the witness also signed his name to a
paper, which was signed by Peter Gettier and
taken by Miller, and that he signed his
name as witness at Miller's instance and
request; and further that he never signed his
name as witness to any other than the one
paper to which said Miller and said Gettier
were parties.
The defence objected to this offer, and. Mr..
Bond argued the question and cited the fol.
lowing authorities in support of the objection
8 Greenleaf, s. So; Russell on Crimes, TOT;
l Arch. Grim. Practice and Pleading, 36s
note. I .N.l# i 8EiE ~#
Mr.. Roberts, for the State, said that the
offer was made to show guilty knowledge, and
that, where the guilty knowledge is an import
ant element, acts showing such guilty knowl-
edge are admissible, though such acts may
themselves be independent crimes; that this
rule applies not only in case of false pretense,
larceny, murder, forgery, &C., but also in con-
spiracy. Wharton, s. $40; johnson, 233;
- Moak's Eng. Rep, 626; 9 Moak's Eng.
Rep, 500; 20 Moaks Eng. Rep, 3S4; 81 Nd.