The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1888-02-02

fer. So far as this md ctment il
concerned there never has been O
hearing before a magistrate accord
ling to the for ma Uf our laws in this
Estate. Where Il man is charged
with an o.Tcnse. unless there be
some necessity tor great haste and
great secrecy. the ulpr,t nr defend
ant Is ordinarily arrested and
brought before u magistrate and a
public trial is had, SD that the dc
fendant may be appraised of the
testimony and may meet his accus
ers face IN face at the outset of the
controversy. II there he su lI:clenI
cause presenturl he is then bonn,l
over to court. After that the case
is then presented before the grand
jury. anu the Witnesses are brought
there and testify on oath as TO the
facts which they claim To be true
duplicating the defendant. And
then if an indie ment is returned.
he is ordnari y brought into court
and placed upon trial uron n full
statement of tie evidence which
the Slate proposes to offer as against
The accused.
In this particular case neither
has been done. Not only this. but
If We are 10 be advised by what has
been said in ine course of this for
nation of the jury last week, this
case is to depend upon some
DIFFERENT TESTIMONY
Than the former one. And We
are not even at the last moment
after we have been a week trying
to get ii jury aud 10 get ready for
the trial of Ibis case, informed
upon The evidence. When we
are nn the threshold and begin
ming the trial upon line facts, the
State, with
THAT SECRECY
Which th.,racterizes this case.
still preserves lis secret or secrets
and declines 10 tell us or to in
form you gentlemen Of what tes-
timony will be Offered in the case
against the defendants. But the
only statement that IS made is
that "they expect TO prove thai
indictment in all its particulars
that is all.
What should we do under cir
cumstances like these? {? The only
thing We can do Is 10 go back and
presume that The Slate will pra-
sent the same testimony tha, they
presented before The magistrate
when the former charge was
made against this defendant aud
other parties than those now i'm
plicated in this Indictment, when
they were tried and bound over
10 court.
Now what were the facts as
presented by the State? And
we were warned a day or two
ago hat HE Stnte had a right To
present this matter of tie iesli-
mony at the prison. AMI indeed
a juror was challenged (ai.d he
was excused, he is not or the
jury) because he said he thought
the ofense had not been commit
ted II the P..ni;en,iary.
Now what is the testimony
which the State will offer as Ia
that occurrence as the defendant
Is advised as 10 what that iesIi
meny is TO be? That was heard
in public. One
JOHN FRANCIS.
Who was also indicted. and is
still indicted for this same 0tfense
his indictment being on file with
the clerk there (poin,ing) of this
court now, undertook 10 testify in
cnuri, and rs we claim, falsely
did testify before the magistrate
andihefore the grand jury, prob
ably, that on the Sth day OF Octo
Der, which was Sunday, The Sun
day following the election in
1885. one Nttn W. Horn. a guard
at the Ohio PeniIenllary, brought
to his cell the tally sheet and
poll buok OF Precinct A of She
Thirte. nih ward in the city OF
Columbus, that before then he
had arranged with the defendant
Mont gomery. and another de-
fendant, DR.. Montgomery, to
make The changes upon the tally
sheet, snch as were afterwards
made. He testified that he work
ed all thai Sabbath day IN those
sheets. He identified the sheets,
when they were brought inio
court, as being The same idenii-
Cal sheets that he had forged. He
point out wafer marks, drops Of
water, which he swore fell upon
the sheet while he was Il. work
upon il, some passing convict
carrying some waller. having ac.
cidental!y or purposely dropped
1t on the sheet; and he testified
further that he took the sheet up
and warmed it by The gas li.hi
and dried il off and then showed
and swore to The marks.
| have beeen informed thai
another man by the name oi
T,n,,,haI! fa.t;S .,l l,oI,r.,