The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1889-03-30
TWO MORE ACQUITTED.
An Interesting Days Session Of
the U. S. Court,
DOUGLASS AND BERGER TRIED.
Both Gases Abandoned by District
Attorney Watts MIR, ErskIno Ap.
plies for a Transcript of EvI.
dcnco in His Case.
DOUGLASS AND BERGER TRIED.

plies for u Transcript of EvI.
dcncc in His Case.
In the United States Court yesterday
the case OF Hugh Douglass, indicted for
when he was not Il legal resident
OF West Virginia, was put on trial to a
Jury. Mr.. Douglass resided on the
Island. Sometime before the election
his family moved to Bridgeport, but he
kept his house on the Island, with part
OF the furniture, and declared his inten.
ton to retain his residence here. II was
his vote for taking which Messrs.
Erskinc, Lukens and Beall, the judges
OF election on the Island, were indicted.
When several witnesses for tho prose-
cution and Mr.. Douglass himself had
been examined, District Attorney Watts
abandoned the case, saying there was
such u conflict in the testimony that he
would not Rsk for q conviction. The
Court directed a verdict OF not guilty,
which was promptly rendered.
The first thing In the afternoon was an
application by Mr.. Erskine TO be allowed
a copy of the notes Of NJ. Q. Crawford's
testimony before the grand jury. He
admitted that in general the testimony
before agrend jury Is not to be diyulged
on the application OF the accused, but
claimed that bis case formed an exCep-
ton, He reCited the facts that he and
tho other election commissioners on the
Island were indicted for fe~loniously re-
ceiving tho vote Of Hugh Douglass,
knowing him not to have beena resident
OF the State for one year, and OF the
county for sixty days; that the indiCt.
ment showed on It's face that 1t was
found only upon the testimony Of NJ. O..
Crawford, and that at the trial
OF the case against himself and
others, a week ago, the only witness
introduced was NJ. @. Crawford, who
testified that Mr.. Douglass vote was
challenged, and that the only testimony
before the commissioners OF election
was that Of Mr.. Douglass himself, show.
ing that he had been q resident many
years, and was still u resident, and en-.
titledto vote. at the trial, when Mr..
Crawford had testified, the District At
torney, in justice, Us he stated, to the
witness, read so much Of his testimony
given before the grand jury as referred
10 this case. 1t was consistent with his
testimony in court, and, Mr.. ErsEine
claimed, did not tend To show that the
commissioners even made a mistake In
receiving the vote OF Hugh Douglass.
Mr.. Erskfne said he found no fault
with the use by the District AAor.
ney OF the testimony before the grand
Jury, for the purpose OF showing thatthe
witness was consistent; and he had no
criticism to make against the reason
given by the District Attorney for pre-
pairing the indictment without evidence,
namely, that two Of the Commissioners
TO be indicted were Democrats, and his
refusal to prepare an Indictment ordered
against them might he unfairly COM
mented upon. Mr.. Erskine claimed,
however, that since the testimony had
been used directly for the benefit Of par
ties who were only incidentally interest
cd, II would be but fair that he should
be allowed to have a copy OF 1t. 1t was
true that he had the benefit, on the re-.
cord, OF a verdict OF mot guilty." but
there could be no more serious libel up.
on a professional man, whose good name
Is his chief capital, than an indictment
by a grand Jury for a felony. The natur-
al and usually fair presumption Is that
there we're some grounds for the charge,
Notwithstanding the subsequent verdict
Of another Jury. He wanted to be able,
at any time In the future, II the charge
should be- made that he had been In.
diCted for felony, to meet II with a copy
OF the grand jury's own notes Of the
testimony before them, showing that
tho indictment WIS found. not only
without probable cause, but In the face
OF the fact, there appearing, that the
thing for which he was indicted WIS n
discharge Of his duty, He stated
that on the day Of the trial he applied to
the District Attorney for u copy OF the
evidence given before the grand jury,
and hC was told that DO should have II
sotne days afterwards he again
spoke 10 the District Attorney, who said
he would look II up when he got time,
and furnish him the CopyI and that at
another time, seeing the papers Of that
case In his hands, ho ngaiu mentioned
The subject to the District Attorney,
who said that upon consideration no
had concluded that hU could not proper.
Iy allow him d copy.
District Attorney Watts replied that
while hU had read the notes o ithe testi.
nony given before the grand Jury, pro.
10 relieve Mr.. Crawford from
any imputAlion Of having testified differ.
before tho two juries, he did II
also with a desire 10 do Justice to tho
defendants. He stated that he had
when first applied TO, 10 allow
Mr.. Etskine. n copy Of the testimony
which he had read In court, but on fe.
had concluded that he ought
not got such q p%reCpdpntj that II he
allow q copy Of this, Il might DO
that any testimony before the grand
should DO At the call Of defendants.
MI, EtskinB replied that every reason
Tor withholding this testimony waSgnhB
that The pfepedenL II set, could only
10 cases where tile representative
the government first chose, for any
purpose, 70 read Ia court the evidence
,lVon before The grand Jury, and could
only 10 the eyldVnc6 10 read,
Thn rnuft atalnl That lhA anniinallhn '