New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-25
IN THE HANDS OF THE JURY
IVES SCORED BY COLONEL FELLOWS.
no VERDICT AT LATE HOUR AND TIE MEN
ARE LOCKED UP-CLosING SCENES
OF THE TRIAL,

"aVhs oeen out for moro than six hours without ar
rNlhe at verdict wore locked up. It Is probable
mat by ii O'Clock this forenoon they will either have
agreed or agreed to disagree Yesterday was an
citing and important day in the trial. No greater
crowd Of spectators has filed the court room dur
ing the progress Of the case and have many
disappointed people been turned away hom the door,
The summing up OF DlstrctAttorney Fellows filled
up the time well into tho afternoon, and when the
Recorders charge had been delivered and the closing
efforts OF Mr.. Brookes earnest struggle for his client
had been made, IL was twenty minutes past O'Clock
Two minutes hter the Iury-box empty, and the
jurors had begun their deliberations. When an
hour had passed, and they had decided as to
the gunt or innocence Of Ives they were sent 10
supper After they returned TO their room moth
ing was heard from them for a long
tlme. great many people waited patiently Mr..
BROOKE entertained groups Of his friends with remi
nscences from his legal career Mr. Ives divided his
attentions between his two sisters who sat in a
corner OF tho court room, and half dozen Of his
acqualntances. At quarter TO 10 the jury in
TO be enlightened by the Recorder as 10 important
point OF law. When they had been back TO their
retirement the Recorder said he thought he would sit
until midnight But after another hour and a quarter
had slowly dragged along, he changed his mind and
decided to leave the Jury nocturnal reflections In
an upper room Of the General Sessions building
1t was ten minutes after IL O'Clock when Colonel
FELLOWS began to sum up. He spoke until 80,
resumed at and did not finish until some minutes
after 80. 1t a bitter and brilliant address.
Even without the DstrlctAttorney's pathetic plea
that the District Attorneys Office had done its duty
and that If the jury did not bring in verdict OF
guilty the DstrIctAttorneys Office would be blamed,
everybody could that Colonel Fellows was des-
perately anxious for a conviction
AS for the tenor Of the speech, a comment made by
Colonel Fellows's able opponent, Charles w. Brooke.
indicates 1t we'll Said Mr.. Brooke: Il think 1t
one Of the most wonderful Illustrations Of mans
ability TO change his position while his feet that
ever saw. He turned aside the whole current Of
this case.5
That is TO say, Colonel Follows did not, as had
been expected, build on the evidence Of Woodruff.
He besought the Jurors to confne their attention to
the issue of the stock certificates June 81, 1885.
He poohed the efforts Of the defence 10 dlscredlt
WoodrIf's story about the transaction In Stayner's
house, intimaung that no did not whether that
story true in its details not. "The question
isn't whether Ives took breakfast in Proctor's that
morning" he said, substantially, but whether he
Issued that stock in the city Of NewYork on that day.
The stock issued Tho certificates are in evidence.
Did those certificates grow on trees ~
Following this line of argument, he made little Of
the testimony of the man who had been looked on as
the prosecutions principal witness, hardly bestowtnS
a dozen words the elaborate testimony about the
Journey from Cincinnati to New-York and the visit 30
Brooklyn given by Woodruff in answer to Mr.. Parker.
He urged that Nevins and smith, of Ivess own office,
had proved the material point Of the Issue Of the stock
| in New-York Addressing himself more particularly
TO the Juror made himself somewhat celebrated
as "Irrepre6slbe Number Four" Colonel Fellows said:
That is the accusation the people have to make to
| Henry s. Ives. Now, what reply have you heard
/ made % that ~
! Here he paused for a moment, and to the surprise
| and amusement Of all but Colonel Fellows, Number
| Four leaned forward and remarked sgnifcanty
! "No reply to make at present.
The District Attorney dealt cleverly with the figures
IN evidence to show that there had been oysrissue
! of stock and an unauthorized over-issue.
Il sayn he added " that against that 6,00o shares
OF stock issued on June 81, 1886, not share OF
| existing stock was cancelled; not certificate was
| cancelled To show that this stock was issued as
substitute for other stock, in place of other stock,
would have been complete answer to our accusa-
ton II the defence win answer that, am willing
to wait a week.
Up jumped Mr. Brooks. "Do you wapt an an
swer!n he exclaimed.
Yes. sirn said Colonel Fellows
"Then say that there is positive proof on the
part of the prosecution by the witness Burns that
every share was cancelled, aud that the certificates
were returned and the books balanced"
"Ah,D said the DistrctAttorney, " that is tho
answer that might have been expected. Whenever
this defence has been confronted by a damning
material Don't tell us what you did ten months
afterwardI" I"
Colonel Fellows characterized Woodruff as an un-
mitigated rascal but he reminded the jury that the
prosecution got him from the camp OF
the defence, and that he was
rascal ho needed to be in order to associate
with Ives. Then the speaker turned raking fire OF
words on the unfortunate defendant. Colonel Eel
lows sarcasm is cutting, and his power of invective
is tremendous. None Of the people who heard his
denuncation of Ives failed 70 admire the plucAy
manner-for It was pucky-in which the young man
maintained show Of composure under the terrible
assault. In closing Colonel Fellows highly CON-
mended Mr.. Parker for the manner in which he had
arranged and presented the case for the people Wo
have done duty" he sad If you acqult this man
suppose the DstrlctAttorneys office Will be blamed
for IL. because the easiest thing Is to blame the
Attorney's Office but have done our duty"
The charge Of Recorder Smyth to the jury occupied
about an hour and half. 1t was an able charge,
susceptible Of no Just criticism or accusation ot
Partially. The Recorder laid down the la" In the
case the whole law. and nothing but the law.
He Instructed the jury as to the three points In the
indictment which the prosecution must establish
First the existence Of the corporation mentioned In
the Indictment and the fact that the defendant was
an officer In the service of the corporation on the
2lst of juno, 1886; secondly, that on that day, al
the city Of New-York, Ives issued instruments pnr-
of shares Of such company or corporation without
being duly authorized by said corporation SO 10 40
thirdly that the defendant did wfuily and know.
ingy and with the felonous intent 70 aenaua
either and any one of which propositions must DO
sustained by evidence competent and satisfactory 70
the Jury and established beyond all reasonable doubt
The Recorder careful and expncit IN ni' ~. In,
strlctIons about the testimony OF an accomplce lie
pointed out that the law had been altered from us
form when the code was first adopted, In 1857.
thinks he added without claiming any great
glory about IT, that It on suggestion OF nlno
that II was altered, backed by suggestion irotn
Chief Justice DavIss The law, he explained, Is
now that conviction cannot be had upon the uiht-
mony OF an accomplice unless he be corroooraed Dy
such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant
with the commission OF the crime. blt, reSnng
from the decision In tho OF the People agalnSt
Hopekirk he showed that the Judge had therein held
he whole case should bo proved outside OF tho tes
timony Of an aocomplice as such rule would OBJ
yIouEiy In most cases make the testimony OF an 40
cnmniIce unnecessary and defeat the aim Of tho
law m securing the testimony OF such men In the
interests OF public Justice