Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-01-28
THE FIRE-BUGS SENTENCED
The Motion for a New Trial
Refused.
GIBBONS GETS TEN YEARS
Besides Going to the Post and
Pillory.



eral sessions and the court Of oyer and
terminer met in adjourned session on
Thursday. Judges Houston, Cullen and
Grubb were present and when they
entered the court room the assembled
lawyers saluted them by rising, an Eng
lish custom which members Of the bar
think should be practiced here.
Three panels of jurors were called
and all but three jurymen responded.
One Juror was excused.
Alexander Burns, Margaret Burns
and William Baxter were continued as
surety until the February term for
Eugene du Pont Burns, accused of burn
ing one of the du Pont barns.
Attorney general Bggs asked that
Edward Clark, Mary Clark, Joseph
Clark and William j. Gibbons, convicted
of ,conspiring to burn a du Pont barn, be
brought into court and the motion for a
new trial be disposed of. Austin Harring-
ton, counsel for the Clarks, asked for a
had been i'll, and supposing another
case would be argued this morning he
had not prepared to argue for new
trial. The attorney-goner4' declared il
important that argumen, DC had at
Mr.. Harrington was not ready. The
court retired two minutes for consulta-
ton and on Its return announced to Mr..
Harrington that he would be allowed
an hour to make preparation. There
upon Mr.. Harrington said he would do
the best he could and would be ready
in Is minutes.
At the request of Lewis @. Vande-
IF
pointed in the Judgment case of Thomas
b. Townsend vs.. Norman L. Ames. liz
explained to the jury that the declara-
ton had been filed with the court
and judgment rendered Plaintiff
he said, had advanced 1876 on &C.
count of a house purchased by Ames
had paid commission amounting 10
$14 for defendant, and that the interest
on the money advanced amounted to
$21. Plaintiff asked in all for 1910
The jury gave verdict for plaintiff fol
this amount.
After the transaction of some minor
business Gibbons and the Clarks were
brought in. Five minutes later, about
Ills o'clock, Mr.. Harrington arose to
present his reasons for new trial. He
was not ready to handle the authorities
tons. lie asked for new trial on the
following grounds; First, the verdict
was against the law in the case; second
the verdict was against the evidence
in the case; third, the court erred
in admitting as evidence the ANONYMOUS
letter of November 9TH, 1890, sent tc
William du Pont fourth, the court
erred in instructing the Jury that Mary
Clark acted under the instructions Of
her husband; fifth, there was no proof
of venue; sixth, the court erred in ad.
hitting as evidence the declarations
made by Mary Clark against her hus
oand and the declarations made BY him
against her. The court erred in admit.
ting as evidence the letter mentioned
Mr.. Harrington commended, because Il
bad not been proved who wrote it
There was no proper proof Of
it; William du Pont should have
been present. lie supposed the anony
nous letter was submitted merely as III
illustration for the help of the Jury. IIt
argued that il there had been con
spiracy his clients must have come to
gether and made an agreement, and ht
challenged the State to show where They
had come together. There was nc
agreement, he asserted, to conspire Tn,
venue must be where the conspiracy
was, and not where the result of The
conspiracy was.
Encouragement Biggs, who spoke
next, passed from the first two reasons
for asking for u new trial and taking vi
the third reason said the standard letter
received by Maggie Moore from MARY
Clark were proven to have come from
Mary Clark and the latter had inquired
of the former why she did not answe
them. Counsel for defendants had no
objected TO the letters being admitted
in evidence. 1t was proven that til,
anonymous letter TO William du Pom
was postmarkcd Wilmington anC
passed through Wilmington post office
y The presumption of the law is that i
reached the person to whom it was di
~ rected, which has been proved. TIL,
w facts show, Mr.. Biggs declared, tina
y Mary Clark was the head of the con
spiracy. The evidence shows she wa
not coerced by her hus band o
anybody else. The defence had faileC
TO show she was acting under the com
mand or influence of her husband A
this point Mr.. Biggs postponed furthe
x argument until afternoon.
George ii. Bates, Esq, filed notice o
4 the transfer of the case of Maggie Har
q klns VS.. the Pullman Palace Car Com
pany from the superior court to til
+ Bnited States district court. II is al
action for $4,000 damages. Mcssrs
4 Bates and Harrington are counsel 70
the defendant and Levi G. Bird, ESQ.
y counsel for the plaintiff Mrs. lIar
kins claims damages because of fata
accident to her husband, in which sh
~ holds the defendant responsible. BY al
act of Congress cases for damages ex
ceeding $4,000 can be transferred iron
the superior court to the United State
district court.
Recess until $50 o'clock was taken.
In the court of general sessions Thurs
6 day afternoon Attorney general Bigg
concluded his argument against grant
ing the Clarks and Gibbons, conviete
OF conspiracy to burn the du Pont barns
new trial. He spoke about half d
hour. A synopsis Of his remarks wa
Unpublished Thursday. He was followe
by Austin Harrington, Esq, who in hi
closing argument said: "As regards tn
question of venue | submit the stenC
Il graphic report of the trial. All theauthoi
4 tiles quoted by the State are decisions O
special statutes. A conspiracy require
u two or more to form it, To prove
N conspiracy it is necessary to show tina
H declarations concerning it were mad
when at least two persons were presen
There is no such evidence in this cast
In this State there is no court of appeal
and therefore the defendants cannc
speak in their own behalf. | hope til
day will come when prisoner will b
allowed to speak in his own behalf"
Next the superior court was reopene