Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-01-28

| for 800, due the local company, which
the latter contended acted as q sct-off to
the claim. After brief argument the
court ruled that tho affidavit of the
| defence was sufficient to stay Judgment
and denied the motion.
AT 1925 o'clock q. m. Friday, five
| minutes after the court of general SEES
sions had convened, Edward Clark,
Mary E.Clark, Joseph Clark and William
j. Gibbons, convicted of burning and
conspiring to burn the du PDnt barns,
We're brought into the courtroom and
Judge Cullen proceeded to read the
| opinion OF the court on the argument for
q new trial. He said:
"As regards the first and second rea-
sons stated for new trial the same
| were waived by counsel, and therefore
it is unnecessary to allude thereto.
In reference to the third reason filed,
that the court erred in admitting an
anonymous letter, this said letter was
offered in evidence by the State and was
not objected to by and on the part of
the counsel for the defence, and the
counsel intcrposing no objection il was
not the duty of the court to suggest or
| point out to the counsel for the defence
in what manner they should try their
case. The court, in reviewing their
action, see no error in the admission
Of the said letter, inasmuch as the
same was offered by the State
as O circumstance from which
it could be determined as to The
| existence Of the conspiracy, and at the
time the said letter was offered the court
| distinctly stated TO the prosecuting
| III Il
from the proof of the existence of con
spiracy, proved nothing to charge the
defendants, unless followed up BY addi-
tional testimony proving the defendants
as being implicated in the conspiracy.
That facts sufficient to satisfy the court
having been proved the whole evidence
as to the guilt or innocence of the par
ties charged rs connecting them with
the conspiracy was left to the jury.
THAT the court were asked to charge
the jury as follows by defendants coun-
sci; That as it appears from the evidence
| in the case Edward Clark and Mary i.
Clark were husband and wife (and still
are) at the time Of the alleged offence
| she cannot be convicted, since in the
theory of the law she was acting under
the control and by the direction of her
husband.
"Ihat from the fact alone that the
husband and wife were jointly charged
| with others in this indictment for con
spiracy, by reason Of the legal presump-
ton that the wife was under the inilrl-
ence of the husband. She could not be
convicted, the court held, and very
properly that no such doctrine existed
to the broad extent mentioned, that the
mere factum of marriage exonerated the
wife in an indictment of this character,
and said to the jury in substance that a
husband and wife, Joined with others in
an indictment for conspiracy might be
| convicted If the facts in the estimation
Of the jury were sufficient to satisfy
them that his wife acted voluntarily.
AFTER the argument made upon the
present motion and a full examination
Of the authorities in relation to liability
Of the wife when she is jointly charged
with the husband and others in an in
dictment of this character it would per
haps be proper to state more fully the
law which was at the trial of said case
briefly alluded to by the court.
The wife prina facia is presumed to
be under the coercion of the husband
in certain felonies not capital and mis-.
demeanors, but this mere presumption
may be rebutted by proof showing that
she acted voluntarily, not in the pres.
ence Of the husband, or that she was
the principal actor and incitor, and
upon such proof she may with her hus,
band and others be jointly charged and
convicted; such has been the common
law upon this subject from the earliest
period and is yet the law existing il
force in this State.
"That in relation to the statement that
no proof of venue as being properly
laid with reference to the offence
charged; this was matter entirely OF
fact which was submitted to the Jury
for their consideration and not matter
for the court to determine.
"That the declarations admitted as
made by the same defendants were SC
admitted under the express ruling o.
this court, that only the party making
such declarations was bound by tho
same, which was in strict conformity tc
ruling made in this court in the case OIL
the State VS.. Owens, ct. al, in SUSSEX
county, not yet reported, which was al
indictment for stealing horse.
NEW TRIAL REFUSED.
"The court therefore, considering that
the defendants have had fair and i'm.
partial trial, and no legal or just cause
having been shown why new tria
should be granted, refused the notion
cLEMENcY REQUESTED.
Addressing the court Austin Harring
ton, Esq, said Before sentence i.
pronounced would like to say few
words. | have attempted in this tria
and in the motion for a new trial TO seel
TO show the court and jury these people
are not guilty. | can show by certifi
cate that the health Of Edward Clarl
will not permit Of him standing in thu
pillory, and Joseph Clark, who. is {
cripple, to be pilIoricd, would have tc
stand on box for him to reach up tt
the holes. | have done the best coulC
and would ask your honors in pronounc
ing sentence to exercise kind clemency.'
THE PRISONERS SENTENCED.
William j. Gibbons, convicted o
burning one of the du Pont barns, wa,
told TO rise and Judge Cullen proceeded
to pronounce sentence Gibbons, h,
said, had been given fair trial and i
was fortunate for him the fire procecdet
no farther than it did. Defendant wal
sentenced to pay $500 to the State
S14, 900 restitution money TO u. l. dr
Pont, de Nemours & Co., it being two
fold the value of the barn destroyed
and the costs Of the prosecution, that OF
Saturday, January 30.h, between III,
hours Of 10 a. m. and 9 p. m, he stant
in the pillory one hour and be whipped
with Is lashes, and that he be i'm
prisoned six years, dating from Friday
and ending January 2tst, 1898.
Next the ClurlSs and Gibbons were