The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-12-23

J.
can witness this Greider witnessed it.
never at any other time signed any paper for
or to Miller. Inever signed any paper promis
ing to pay Samuel d. Miller $1,000 or any
other sum of money. Never signed any paper
to him except the walnut log agreement and
never authorized any one else to do so. No
one ever came for the walnut logs. The next
heard of the matter Phanual Wantz sent for
me and l went to his house and he told me
that Denison held a note against me for 81
600. This was the Sunday week, ten days or
two weeks after signed the paper at Melrose.
Schaeffer and Gettier were at WANTS at the
same time. Don't recollect whether or no
Peterman was there. We agreed to come to
| Westminster, and the next morning Wantz,
Gettier, Schaeffer, Peterman and l did come.
| We went to Judge Smiths office and told him
about it. Then Wantz and Judge Smith went
out to see Denison. After while l started
to 90 to see Denison. Preached his office just
as Judge Smith was leaving it. went in and
asked Denison about my note. He said that
! he could not find it. He hunted around and
not finding it said he must have it at Coetes'
| Hotel. He went to Cootes' Hotel and while
he was gone Gettier, Schaeffer and Peterman
! came in. Denison soon came back and they
asked for their notes. He said he could not
! find them and told US to go with him to his
room in Cootes' Hotel. We did so, and he
took pocket-book from pantaloons hanging
| on the wall of his room and from it took the
notes, laid them on the bed and then handed
to each man his note. We looked at them, he
reached for them and we handed them back.
told him | never signed the note, and the
others told him the same thing as to theirs
The notes were assigned on the back by Mil
| Ter to Denison. Denison said he never would
have bought the notes if any other man than
| Cornelius Wentz had brought Miller to him:
that there was no nicer man in the county than
Mr.. Wentz and he thought it was all right.
He said that he did not buy the notes the same
day that Wentz brought Miller there, that
Miller would not give him more than six per
cent. interest, and he asked a bigger discount;
that Miller went away and came back twice
! and the next afternoon when Miller came he
bought them and Miller gave him six per cent.
1t made something like $3.50 for the two
months. He said that the Saturday evening
before, John Greider said thenotes were all
right, that we signed these papers. He said
if the notes were fraud, and he had to lose the
money, it would ruin him. He said that Mil
Ter said he sold us r. r. stock. | asked him
| how he could take a note on me for $4,000,
not knowing me, and he said that he went
down and looked at the records and 1t looked
well there and that was the reason he took it.
He said that Miller had a note against Peter
man for 81, 500, but that he did not buy it be-
cause Peterman's name was written with a
cross in the middle, and he did not trust it for
| he did not know whether Peterman made the
cross in it or not. | don't recollect whether
he said John Greider's name was ON Peter
mans note. | have never seen Miller since,
nor had any further talk with Denison. | re-
| ceived letter some time in June last, by mail
at Melrose, my post-office. l gave it to Reu.
ben Schaeffer and have not seen it since. L
looked for it and could not find it. 1t was di-
rected to me and postmarked New York.
The traverser's counsel here agreed that
| Reuben Schaeffer should be called to ascertain
what had become of the letter and that Mr..
Yost could be recalled.
Mr.. Schaeffer then testified that 9ost gave
him the letter and that he brought it with some
other papers to Judge Smith Office the day
we came to Westminster, but has since lost it;
that he has looked for it but cannot find it.
| Philip J. Yost then continued II opened
the letter and read it, was like the one now
shown me. Inever made any agreement with
Samuel D. Miller that he should transfer any
note of mine to a broker. | was present be-
fore Justice Baltozer at the school house in
| Manchester when Denison was present in the
| latter part of October and heard Judge Maulsby
asked for the surrender of the notes of myself,
Reuben Schaeffer, Phanuel Wantz, Peter Get
tier and think Ferdinand Peterman, so that
they could be cancelled. Denison made no
reply. Judge Maulsby said he demanded the
notes as representing these men and said the
notes were forgeries."
| Cross examined, the witness said: son
the Monday was in Westminster left Judge
Smith office alone, and went to Denison' S
ahead of the other gentlemen; Denison did
not show me my note at his office; showed it
to me at the hotel; | never executed nor sign
ed it; my name was to it; it looked like my
handwriting, only heavier than mine; it was &
| forgery; | never made such note"
The defence then offered the following mo-
ton John E. Denison, the traverser in this
case, and now on trial, by James A. c. Bond
and VIM. N. Hayden, his attorneys, protesting
and alleging that he is not guilty of the offence
alleged against him in the indictment in this
case, or of any offence whatever, moves the
Court to acquit and discharge him from fur
Their answering the said Indictment and the
charges therein alleged against him; because
the State has now proved that the pretended
conspiracy alleged in the said Indictment cul-
minated in felony committed before the
finding of the said indictment
The State objected to the Court entertain
ing this motion After argument as to wheth
er it was proper at this stage of the case to
raise the question, the Court said as to the
general question of practice, think that the
Court would have the right to exercise the
power at some stage of the case to consider
this question; the difficulty is as to whether
this particular case has progressed far enough
for the question to be raised now in this par
ticular case; the counsel for the trayerser
think it has, and cannot refuse to hear them.
The State reserved an exception to this ruling
of the Court.
Mr. Bond then addressed the Court in favor
of the motion, and said: "Actuated by the
desire to save labor for counsel, Court and all
concerned, we raise this question now and
feel constrained to press it and take the view
of the Court upon it, and we feel confident
that it is we'll founded. 1t is this: That if
that which we saw must have inevitably come
at some stage of the case has come, and it is
shown that if any offence has been committed
it is felony, and if the proof shows felony,
then this case can go no further. A conspir-
acy must be shown by proof of an agreement
to do an illegal act, or to do an act by illegal
means. The agreement and the illegal char
acter must both be shown, and when the lille
gal act is shown to be felony, that ends the
case. A conspiracy to commit a misdemea-
nor is not merged in the misdemeanor, but
when higher grade of crime is proved to
have been committed, the misdemeanor is
merged in the higher crime. In this case the
crime perpetrated, according to the State
testimony, is felony; according to the States
offer it is felony, and the proof of all the wit:
nesses shows the preparation of felony, and
if the Court sees this the misdemeanor must
be merged in the felony and the case must
end If it has been proved that a felony has
been committed, the traverser must be ac-
quilted of the charge as laid in the Indictment.
Under the common law this principle always
LII ID o11fhn tnf no
trary. 81 American Decisions, 124; 2 Rus
sell on Crimes, 674 note; 2 Arch. Grim. Prac-
tice and Pleading, 1888; 5 Darlington & Payne,
7O4.
Judge Hayden then said SIN the outstart
of this question we call attention to the fact
that the Constitution of 1776 and the Bill of
Rights give to the people of Maryland the
right of the Common Law of England. Since
that time, although our Courts refer with great
respect to English cases and decisions, it is
not in the power of English Courts or Parlia-
n,ant tn ma 10 laws for 1Is In all hooks the