Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-12-17

To the prisoners sister the verdict was
evidently q sad blow. but she controlled
her emotions and only tightening of the
lips and deeper tinge to the expression
of pain and suffering that her features
have worn during the trial gave indication
Of how she was affected.
VERDICT EASILY REACHED.
The jury had no trouble in arriving at a
verdict. When they first assembled in the
privacy of the jury room. they sat down
Tor thorough consideration of the case.
They discussed the evidence, carefully ex-
amined the plots, studied the location of
the various buildings, and measured the
distances between the different points, in
cuding that between Gibbons home and
the scene of the fire. The case was gone
over i'll all its hearings, and when this was
done, without the forinality of a ballot, the
jury unanimously agreed upon Il verdict
Of guilty. No man had to be particularly
reasoned with in order to draw him to
this conclusion. Each man was satisfied
that no other verdict than that of guilty
could justly be rendered.
GREAT VICTORY.
Atiorney-gcneral Biggs and Deputy
Attorncy-general Davis were pleased at the
result of the trial. II was /, case of the
utmost importance to the community, and
believing they had the right criminal in
the tolls Of justice, they labored hard
to present evidence sufficient to warrant d
verdict Of guilty. 1t was one Of the best
managed and most fully-conducted
trials ever fought in the courts Of this
State, and was resisted with unusual skill
and energy by the attorney for the d ,fence
Altogether it was victory that the States
officers have Just cause to be pioud Of
William J. Gibbons had company,
Friday afternoon, when he again
| lie t,, La, 6 q
sessions court. He looked trifle more
serious than when he received the an
nOuncement of his conviction of the
crime Of barn-burning, at the morning
session, as though he was giving some
thought to the effect cumulative SEN
tence might have upon his future
| liberty.
Gibbons associates were Edward
CLARK, Mary Clark, his wife, and Joseph
Clark, his son. These four arc indicted
jointly for conspiracy to burn the prop
erty of the du Points. The penalty is
fine, Imprisonment or pillory, either of
them or any two of them, at the discre-
ton of the court
The work of drawing the Jury was
begun, and the second Juror called was
Charles l.. Simmons, who was ON the
|
morning session. Mr.. IIiles at once
asked the court that Mr.. Simmons be
sworn upon his voir dire, and asked
whether he had formed any opinion in
reference TO the pending case. lie said
the juror, by his action in the previous
trial had already formed and expressed
an opinion as to Gibbons, in so far as
the evidence already given with respect
to threats and statements might apply
to the pending case. He objected,
therefore, on the ground that Mr. Sim
mons could not be an impartial juror
Mr.. Ililles cited case where verdict
had been set aside because the Jury
which convicted prisoner on a second
Indictment, had sat in the court room
and listened to the testimony given in
his trial upon another indictment
Mr.. Biggs said the practice and the
law on this subject is well known in
this State. He said the law for swear
ing jurors upon their voir dire applies
only TO capital cases. The right to so
swear a juror is therefore a statutory
right, and cannot apply to all cases.
The pending case, he said, was entirely
distinct from the one Just tried. The |
first offence was felony, the second |
only misdemeanOr-a charge of CON
spiracy to burn a barn which was not |
burned. He held that if the IL Jurors
who tried the case just closed are TO be |
taken out it would virtually clog the
wheels of Justice. as there would not he
enough names left to draw panel |
from.
Mr. Ililles argued upon the consti-
tutional right Of every man to n trial by
an impartial jury, which went beyond
the provisions of any statutory law.
The court declined to uphold Mr..
liillcs' contention, and the drawing of |
the jury was proceeded with. Those
challenged We're William Armour, Will
liam y. Bradley, Charles Griffith, Samuel
l.. Handy, Thomas o'Connell, George
w. Goodley and Il. Frank Lippincott.
The Jury rs drawn was as follows:
James Valentine, farmer, Mill Creek
hundred; Charles l.. Simmons, grocer,
Wilmington; Samuel Townsend, farmer,
Appoquinimink; John w. Worrell,
farmer, Mill Creek; BENZ. r. Severson,
farmer, Blalkbird; William II. Roybold,
farmer, Rcd Lion; James Il. Veasey,
farmer, Pencader; John Lockerman,
farmer. Blackbird; Henry NJ. Silver,
farmer, New Castle; Wilson Nlahon,
farmer, Pencader; Allison, Truitt;
farmer, New Castle; James A. Lamb
den, farmer, Appoquinimink.
Messrs. Valentine, Lockerman, Veasey,
Simmons and Truitt were on the Jury
that convicted Gibbons.
The offence being only misdemeanor
the prisoners were not placed in the
dock, but were seated beside their c0un-
sci, in the bar. The witnesses on both
sides were excluded from the court
room.
Deputy Attorney-general Davis being
unwell, suffering from an attack Of
neuralgia, Attorney general Bigss
opened the case for the State. He read
the indictment, which charges the
prisoners with conspiring with "various
other evil-disposed persons" to burn a
certain barn of the Il. |. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, valued at
$4,000, on the 10th day of January,
1891. The indictment is in two counts.
different in form but charging the same
offence.
The charge, Mr. Biggs said, was con-
spiracy TO burn Il certain barn of the
du Pont Company. A conspiracy is
between two or more per-
sons, by concert of action, to accomplish
some unlawful purpose, or some law
full purpose by unlawful means. 1t
matters not whether the purpose is ac-
the offence consists of the
agreement to accomplish the purpose. ,
Mr.. Biggs said the State would show
that there is a du Pont barn known rs 5
the "old barn." located near the old
office and the house in which Henry du
pont, now deceased, lived. The State will |
show that the defendants time and again
planned to burn this "old barn" That !