Morning journal and courier., 1886-07-19
AN RxCITING nI0mENT


 10 a Crowded Court Room-The ver-
 dict of the Jury in the Conspiracy
 Cases-Three BOycOtters Convicted
 on All COunts-One Alone Escapes
 An Appeal ITaken-Judge StOddard's
 Charge to sne Eury.
 Throngs of people were present in the Stu perior court room at 10 o'clock Saturday morning to see and hear the result in the con- spiracy cases. Many prominent citizens were present, and the gallery was filled to ever flowing. Many lawyers were present, the case being one of extraordinary legal inter est, and on the streets the utmost public in terest was apparent to hear the news when it was learned that the jury were out delib- erating on the case. The accused, Glidden, McNamara, Mulcahy and Busche, conversed in low tone with Moran, the junior counsel for the defense, as Judge Stoddard appeared and took his seat. State Attorney Doolittle talked with Judge Blydenburgh. Mir. filling was in the clerks room. Professor Platt ap- peared and conversed with Talcott H. Rus sell his other assistant in the defense. Sheriff Gates opened court and Judge Stoddard began to read his charge to the jury after the usual formula as to the jury had been gone through with. The material points in | it are given below. The charge was closely ! followe5 by throngs of spectators and they all appeared to be giving earnest heed to every sentence All the daily papers in this ' city were represented in the court room and special telegrams concerning the case were being prepared for leading New York, Bos- ton and Hartford papers. Judge Stoddard' s f,,111 of the time was spent in reading numerous requests in writing to charge this or that to the jury, made by one side or the other Some of these requests the court said were already stated in the charge; others were ruled out as indefinite, while as to others the point was declared well taken. The court read a considerable part of the charge from manuscript, but spoke at different points extenperaneously. The jury were allowed by the court to sit during the charge. The charge finished, they retired to the jury room l and they were out one hour and ffty-seven minutes, during which time animated discus sion was conducted in whispers regarding it's tenor in all parts of the court room. The general sentiment was that the defense could not object to it. All was excitement and a hush went over the court room as the jury reappeared.
 "Gentlemen of the jury" asked Clerk In
 
 "We have," replied Foreman Oviatt. The foreman then announced that the jury had acquitted Defendant J. F. Busche, and found B. F. Glidden, J. F. Mulcahy and D. T. McNamara, the other three, guilty on all the six counts of the indictment. The de- fense immediately gave notice of appeal. The crowd in the court room at once broke up. The news was quickly circulated from mouth to mouth and was soon flying about the streets and was received with much sat isfaction by law abiding citizens everywhere in the city.
 Judge Stoddard excused the jury and ad- journed court until ? p. m. At that time a formal notice of appeal to the Supreme court was filed by the defense.
 At 2 o'clock, to which hour the court ad journed, there were many people present ex- pectiug to hear sentence pronounced, but to their surprise they learned that the sentence was deferred, counsel for the accused hay ing taken an appeal to the Supreme Court of Errors, which sits next December, and that sentence will not be pronounced until the Supreme court has passed upon the case. The accused were placed under $500 bonds each. Bonds were furnished for each of the accused by Patrick Malloy, saloon keeper and grocer on Webster street, father of Daniel Malloy, whom Bernard Lynch was recently tried fer murdering. Malloy being sworn was inquired of by States Attorney Doolittle | and said he owned lot free of incumbrance | which cost him $500, owned house, had a prosperous business and had money in the l bank. He was accepted. At3 p. m. the court adjourned.
 THE JUDGES CHARGE.
 The court, after stating that the State must prove every element of the crime charged by evidence satisfactory beyond a req sonable doubt, said the accused were charged with criminal conspiracy together and with others and this must be proven. The court then stated the substance of the charge in the six different counts in the information with which the public familiar. Proceeding, he stated the case of Commonwealth vs. Hunt,n' in which the Supreme court of Mas sachusetts defined conspiracy as follows: To constitute an indictable conspiracy there must be combination of two or more per sons by some concerted action to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose not in itself criminal or unlawful by criminal or un- lawful means. It is said by the court in the case of State vs. Rowley 12 Conn.,, that an indictment may be sustained whenever there is a conspiracy for an unlawful purpose or tO effect lawful purpose by unlawful means. This may not be strictly accurate def1ni- tion of criminal conspiracy. But l think it is sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this case and I charge you that "a criminal conspiracy is a combination, agreement and confederation of two or more to accomplish, by concerted means, an unlawful purpose, or to effect lawful pur- pose by unlawful acts and means" The question therefore is, has the State proved that the combination or conspiracy existed? Second. Has the State proved that any pur- pose of the conspiracy, if any such existed, was unlawful; and third, assuming that the conspiracy is proved to have existed and that it's purposes were unlawful has the State proved that as part of said conspiracy it hry4 41,n t0 1iGh such lawful purposes by unlawful acts or means!
 In the first place, speaking generally, it is of course plain beyond dispute that the Darlington Publishing company had a law full right to employ such persons as it chose and may lawfully refuse to employ others at it's pleasure. It is equally plain and not to be denied that every person has a right to seek employment by said corpora tion and to enter upon such employment on such terms as may be virtually agreed upon. These natural rights and no power, not even that of the State, and person combination of persons, can take such rights from the possessor against his will. And conspiracy to prevent by unlawful means the exercise of such rights on the part of the corporation or it's employees is @ criminal conspiracy. On the other hand it is equally plain and not to be denied that the accuse l have and always had in common with all others the right to be employed by the Darlington Publishing company. It is also plain that the accused have the right to combine together and with any and all others by lawful means to raise and fix the wages of themselves and their associates and by lawful means to obtain employment for themselves and their associates. The right of the accused is perfect to combine with others to say to the Darlington Publishing company, we ourselves and our associates demand to be employed by you. We won't work for you except under certain conditions and stipulations which we see fit to make. And to obtain and keep such employment for themselves and their associates, the accused may say they decline to work for the Car rington Publishing company if the Caring ton Publishing company see fit to employ any persons not associated with us.
 Here the judge read from Commonwealth vs. Hunt, Massachusetts case, page 12S to 129 and proceeding said: Tn substance the averment is this, that the defendants and others formed themselves into society and agreed not to work for any person who .bo Or OthAr