Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1883-11-22


| pleasant nature, and IL there was any
difficulty, as one Of the witnesses tor the
State testified there was, 1t was between
the defendant and the foreman, and not
with Mr.. Eastburn. The State had totally
| failed to connect the prisoner with the
fire, and the only things on which It re-
lied were, that the defendant had
been In the stable previous to the fire
and that he had left the city on the same
night.
Attorney-denersi Gray opened the
argument for the State, by saying that
Mr.. Bradford, who had been assigned by
the Court to defend the prisoner, had
done everything in his power for him and
he felt called upon to compliment him on
the very able manner in which he had
conducted the defense.
Mr.. Gray commended that although all
the evidence had been circumstantial,
enough had been proven to show that the
prisoner had malice In his heart against
Mr.. Eastburn, which he had expressed
two months before in the presence OF
Emma Fisher, when he said that John
Eastburn had cheated him, and he would
get even with him. He commended that
the crime had been fully proven, and
asked for verdict of guilty.
The jury was briefly charged by the
Chief Justice, and after nearly two hours
deliberation returned verdic. of not
guilty.
The grand Jury returned at a O'Clock,
and upon the Attorney. General stating
that it had acted upon all the bills
presented, was discharged from further
attendance.
Emma Riley and John Dennis, oolored,
who pleaded not guilty to an indictment
charging them with assault with intent
to kill Absalom Watson, were allowed to
Withdraw their plea of not guilty and
plead guilty to assault only.
The Court heard the statement of
Absaiom Watson, and said that otfsnses
of this kind had become too common, and
it was necessary to make an example of
the offenders. The prisoners were then sen.
fenced to pay the costs Of prosecution, q
fine of 300 each, and be imprisoned two
ye.rs.
The case of Ward Groome, colored, in
dioted fer breaking into the house of
Elizabeth Ferguson last Sunday mo rning
WAS taken up for trial. The State was
represented by Walter Hayes. ESQ.,, and
Isaac T. Miller testified that he resides
at Front and West streets, and at an
early hour last sunday morning he was
aroused from his sleep by come one in
his bed room, aud upon looking saw the
prisoner standing near the foot Of his bed.
AS soon as the man found that he WAS
discovered he jumped out the
back window, which the witness
had closed when he retired, but which
was now open. The witness followed
him to the roof OF an outbuilding adjoin-
Ing, and then struck him with chair
leg. The fellow jumped down and made
his escape, but Mr.. Miller pursued him
for some distance, when he disappeared
in the vicinity of Water and West streets.
A hat that was picked mp on the witness
premises was produced in court, and
identified by him IS the one that the
prisoner had dropped.
Officer Marques testified that after he
heard OF the robbery he called on Mr..
Miller and after obtaining a description
of the man arrested him at the house OF
a coored man named Martin, on Water
street between West and Tatnall. When
he started with him to the hall the
witness found that he had no hat, and
was Obliged to get one for him from
Martin.
George Wilson, colored, testified that
he resides with Martin, and was awakened
about O'Clock Sunday morning by some
one knocking at the door, and upon
opening il found the prisoner who WAS
bare headed. He came in and WAS not
drunk, that the witness noticed.
James Martin testified to the fact Of
lending his hat to the prisoner when he
WAS arrested. Mr.. Hayes announced that
the State would close with this witness,
and Mr.. Ward opened for the defense by
claiming that as there was a flaw in the
| indictmentit would not stand. He pointed
| out that the indictment rs framed i,
| charged the prisoner with breaking into
| ths house of Blizsbsth Ferguson with
| intent to commit larceny, when the fact
had been shown that it WAS the house OF
1 Isaac 7. Miller that had been entered.
Mr.. Hayes commended that as Mr.. Miller
| rented his apartments from Mrs. Ferguson
| it WAS her house. The Chief Justice said
| this WAS very important matter and
should receive due consideration. II
| would be we'll for the counsel for the
defense to hunt up authorities on the
matter, and present them in the morn
ing. In the meantime the examination
OF the witnesses could be proceeded with,
and the Court would not charge the jury
until this question was disposed of.
Daniel Simmons was examined for the
defense, and Mr.. Ward made an able
argument to the jury, in which he CON
tended that nothing had been shown to
prove that the prisoner was the one who
l k,,A hu al ipna n a
he had shown that it would have been 6
physical impossibility for him to have
done 30, as he was too drunk.
During lull in the business in the at
ternoOn, Austin Harrington, ESD, one O.
the counsel for the Lists, made applioa
tion to have the witnesses in that case
for the defense paid by the State, and tn,
matter was held under advisement. Al
$50 court adjourned until 10 O'Clock
Wednesday morning.
| Judge Wootten was present at thu
opening OF court yesterday morning, ant
occupied the bench with Chief Justic'
Comegys and Associate Judge Houston.
| H.H Ward FAC. ;, counsel, for the defens'
in the case of the State vs.Ward Groome
colored, indicted for breaking into thu
| house OF elizabeth Ferguson at Front ant
West streets, ar, ned on his motion t.
| quash the indictment, on the grount
| that no entry was made a
Mrs. Ferguson's house, but as had bee,
| shown by the evidence to the house q
Isaac T. Miller. He stated that Mrs
Ferguson rents the house at No. 400 Yves
Front street, and subjects a part to Mr.
Miller. Mr.. Ward produced number O
authorities to show that where persol
rents part Of a house to another, an
it is separated from the part occupied b.
the party so renting, it is to all intent
and purposes separate house.
Walter G.. Hayes, Esq, for the State
opposed the motion, aud commended tina
whereas in this house there was one CON
mon door for the use of the occupants, tn
, law regarded is al one house.
Mr.. Hayes produced number {
authorities in support of this position
. After the argument the Court override
a | the motion.
Mr.. Ward then resumed his argumer
. to the jury, and oOntended that it ha
not been proved that the hat belonged
the prisoner, and that it was impOssibl
: for MIR. Miller to identify the prisonc
= owing to the darkness.
He was followed by Mr.. Hayes, who IT
viewed the evidence, and claimed that
!, all tended to show that the prisoner VS.
n the man who had been in the hous'
. When Mr.. Hayes closed the jury Wa
n charged to the effect that there was l
!, | doubt that the house had been burgla
| lied and the only question for the jur