Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1892-01-22
CONSPIRATORS SENTENCE.
WILLIAM GIBBONS GIFTS TEN
YEARS ON TWO oouaTs.

Edward CLARK VIII Spend b0Von heAts
in the Chateau de si&mons-Joe
clark Only Gets Three YsAss-STetion
for New Trial Rspulsod-Joe CLARK
Brsaks Down.
In the Court Of General Sessions
yesterday, with Judges Cullen, Houston
and Grub on the bench, Attorney Gen
eral Biggs concluded argument against
new trial In the case of Edward. Mary
and Joseph Clark and William J. Glib
bons, who were recently convicted of
conspiracy to burn the Dupont barns.
Elk Mlyor Harrington followed Attor
ney- General Biggs in the argument for q
new trial for the Clarks yesterday after
noon, after the jurors had been dis
charged until 11o'clock to day, he said
"Every case my learned friend has
cited has been where q special statute
applied in the state where the case was
tried. There has not been ore scintillR
of evidence for the state to prove an
agreement by two or more of these
persons. When you see that evidence
you can only conclude that there was no
agreement. That was the substance Of
the whole case. The law says that there
must be concerted action. VIII you send
these people to punishment on such evi
denee as tbat2'
aWherein 1t is a felony burglary or
&C committed by herself she could not
be under coercion, Here is q case of mis-
demeanor, a conspiracy and the presump-
ton is at once that she Is under the
coercion of her husband unless the state
shows that she was not under hts coercion.
It is for the state to prove IL and not FOR
her to set up the plea.
"Unfortun ately there Is in this state
no court Of appeals for criminal cases.
God knows. / hope that some time TIE
state will give the prisoner the right to
speak for himself
s'Yoa have passed upon the evidence
to the jury and you must now say
whether these persons shall be sentenced
or not.
"The attorney general has admitted
that the state did not know where this
agree nenb was made.
Biggs-" Where; in New Castle
county"
Harrington-"Yo di not say that. II
your honors believe that there was an
agreement, then my argument falls. II
the attorney general does not connect
Clark and his wife IS one person with
another, then there could not have beer
an agreement. That is all have &c
say"
Judge Cullen-"The court will an
nounce its decision tomorrow morning al
10 o'clock.
And IL Never Game Back.
The case of William Helmrod VS.. the
Delaware Morocco Company was calleG
up by Lewis G, Vandegrift, for the plain
tiff He said that the defence in its aft
II. ~ til - 4
concsde
John H. Rodney represented the defend
tiff He said: "It arose from a note
given by the Delaware Morocco Company
to their own order. Suit is brought b.
William Helmrod. he is a member O.
the firm of Keen. Sutterlee & Co, to whom
this note was given. George Maxwell
the treasurer, SAYS there Is a Just aDC
legal defence in the nature Of q set-oH.
The said note, which was the cause o
suit, was executed by the defendant TO
an account due them. At the time th
note was given they had an accoun
against William Schloss. This amounte
to &739. So
James Keen made application for al
order upon Schloss for the amount du
the morocco company. He requested an
insisted that he could get the money an
prevent lbRhi plOCcbulukE. nc WuuA
credit the morocco company wit
it on the note They gave the order
has never been rsturned The defenc
admits that there is balance due tn
plaintiff, but claims that the order is
set off to the debt due Keen, Sutterle
& Co
The motion for judgment was denie
as the affidavit was considered stron
enough TO bring the matter to an issuI
Court then adjourned until 10 o'cloc
this morning.
Court reconvened at 10 20 o'clock thi
morning. Judges Cullen. Grub an
Houston were on the bench. The sttenS
ance was somewhat larger than it wa
yesterday,
The Prisoners Brought In.
At 1850 o'clock Edward Clark, Mar
Clark and William j. Gibbons wei
brought into the court room by Sheri
Simmonss deputies
A general air OF expectation pervade
the room and the faces of the prisoner
were paler than usual.
Decision OF the Court
Judge Cullen said;
THE court Is now ready TO aunount
its decision in the case of the state v
Edward Clark, Mary Clark Joseph Clai
and William J. Gibbons"
He went over the reasons assigned f
a new trial and said:
"As regards the frs and secoi
reasons stated for new trial, the san
were waived by counsel and therefore
is unnecessary to allude thereto
reference to the third reason filed th
the court erred in admitting an anon
nous letter; this said letter "
offered in evidence by the sta
and was not objected to by 81
on the part Of the counsel for the defenC
and the counsel interposing no obiectio
1t wa not the duty Of the court to su
gest or point out to the counsel for &
defense In what manner they should t
their case.
1.-The eourt.in reviewing their action,
no error In the admission of the 81
letter, inasmuch as the same was offer
by the state as a circumstance, frt
which It could be determined as
the existence of the conspiracy and
the time the said letter WAS offered, I
court distinctly stated to the prosecute
officer that the said letter, In itself, APPS
from the proof Of the existence OF
conspiracy, proved nothing
charge the defendanta, unless I
lowed up by additional testimony provi
the defendants as being IMPLICATED in
conspiracy. That fact sufficient TO S
a. a.,-wk bousrn laar Nwnuad