The Wilmington daily Republican., 1891-12-12
THE cIARKs ON TRIAL


Edward, Mary and Joseph Clark and
William .. Gibbons Indicted for Con-
spiracy.
Court reconvened at q 80 o'clock yes
terday afternoon when Edward CLARK,
Mary Clark, Joseph Clark and william
j. Gibbons, were brought In and the
drawing OF O jury to try their case was
commenced. William Armour was
drawn and no objection made, but
when the clerk called the name of
Charles l.. Simmons, and he took his
| seat In the box, he was objected to by
Mr.. Hilles, on the ground that as he
had been on the Gibbons jury, he was
prejudiced, and not competent to
serve.
Mr.. Hilles argued this question at
/ length and quoted a number of au-
| thotities to show that he RS juror on
the previous trial had expressed an
opinion by his verdict, and therefore
! was not competent to serve.
/ This was opposed by Attorney Cen
eral Bisgs, who contended that II the
| Jurors who served on the former case
were incompetent to serve on this the
course of justice would be blocked,
and it would be- almost impossible to
secure jury II ON the present panel.
Mr.. Hilles again contended that the
accused were entitled TO a trial by un
impartial jury, and that no one who
had served III the Gibbons case could
be impartial In this.
The court, after hearing a lengthy
argument on the question, decided
that the fact OF man having served
| on another Jury would not incapaciate
him from serving on this.
The drawing of the jurors was then
proceeded with and the jury as finally
drawn and accepted was as follows:
| Charles l.. Simmons, Samuel Town
send. William Il. Reybold, James I.
| Veasey, Wilson Malone, Allison Truitt,
James A. hnmbdin, James Valentine.
Ben njamin X. ServerSon, John w. Wor-
rell, John Lockerman and Henry M.
Silver. William Armour. William 4.
Bradley, Charles Griffith. Samuel J..
Handy. Thomas O'Connell, George w.
iGoodley and b. Frank Lippineott were
challenged. james Valentine was
made foreman OF the jury. Five Of
them were on the Gibbons Jury.
The State was represented by Attor-
ney General Biggs and Deputy Attor-
ney General Davis, while Austin Har-
rington, Esq, appeared for the Glarks,
and William s. Hilles, ESD, for Glib
bons.
The case was opened by Attorney
General Biggs, who said this was an
Indictment found at the present term
of court, charging Edward Clark. Mary
Clark. Joseph Clark and William Glib
bons with conspiracy to burn a barn
of the UuPonts on january 10th, 1891.
He said this indictment was found un-
der section 9, page 1856, OF the revised
code. which provides fine, the pillory
and i'm piisonment for this offense.
Mr.. Biggs read the long Indictment,
and then, ut the request Of Mr.. Hilles
ordered all the witnesses on both sides
to leave the room.
He then proceeded with his opening
TO the jury, and said that while this
was an indictment for conspiracy 10
burn barn, it was not burned, or
they would be indicted for arson. MIR.
Biggs said that it took two or IN ore
persons to form conspiracy, aud that
q conspiracy was for the purpose Of
doiug an unlawful act, or to perform
a lawful act by unlawful means. He
said that he would show that on the
DuPonts' property there Is Il building
known as the old barn.
lie would show that these defend
ants had conspired together to burn
this old barn, and that they had also
sent letter to the DuPonts contain
ing threats OF what they intended to
do, and If he succeeded, he would ask
for verdict OF guilty.
| Eugene DUPONT testified that he is u
membSr of the firm of DUPONT de Ne
inours & Company. His finn OWLS n
barn situated in Ghristlana Hundred,
known as the old barn, On January
~, 1880, the iirm placed watchman at
this barn.
why did you place him there?' in
quired Mr.. Biggs.
II object" said AR. Hilles, what
has that got to do with this case?'
We'll IL we are to have an argu-
ment, eaid Mr.. Biggs, I'VE will have
1t right"
Now, don't answer this question,
MIR. DUPONT, until the counsel on the
other side has time to object. Have
you ever had any barns burned %
II object to that question most ser.
iously,' said Mr.. Harrington, and an
argument ensued, during which a
number of authorities were cited by
Mr.. Biggs to show what constituted
conspiracy and what testimony was
admissible in such case.
The argument WAS continued fol
some time, when the Court decided
that the State had right to show
that there was a conspiracy to burr
| unlS Darn, anu hibO tndJ OJnef barns
had been burned.
Mr.. Dlggs then repeated his ques
ton, when Mr.. Dupont replied;
",Ihe first harm WAS burned Decem,
Der 26, 1899 the next, January 81, 1890
the next November s, 1900 and the
last one, November IL, 1890 On
january 22 1880, the firm employ
cd watchmnn for the old barn. He
went on duty about q p. IN. and went
off about 3 O'Clock in the morning.
They had no watchman during the
day, as there was generally man EN-.
plos ed in the building Clark was EN-.
plo=ed by the firm from September,
1865 until March, 1888. He left them
land went into the milk business on
one of the small farms belonging TO
the firm. Previous to december 25.
1889, they gave him notice to move,
rs complaint had been made that he
kept disorderly house. He moved
on March 25 lS9o.n
| just as the cross examination com
meneed. court adjourned until IL
o'clock this morning.
| s