Evening journal., 1893-01-25

Inc prosecution In the case Against g.
w. Currinder Rests with the Testimony
of One Witness and the Defense Presents
severaI-A verdict Expected This After
noon.
After the 2 o'clock recess yesterday
afternoon the defendants counsel in the
Morrison election case addressed the jury
and the court delivered a charge regarded
as favorable for acquittal
The jury then retired and upon failure
TO agree last night were furnished with
supper and locked up.
The jury returned at 10. 80 this morn
ing and stated that they could not agree
upon a verdict and were discharged.
The defendant renewed his bond and
was discharged. The case will be re-
tried at the next term of court.
Four Republicans, Lednum, Holt.
Choate and Thorp voted for conviction,
and three Republicans, Richards, Gray
and LeCompte, voted for acquittal
The case of the United States VS..
George w. Currinder was called this
morning. The jury impanelled and
sworn consisted of Enoch Clark, fore
man; Manson Whaller, Harvey NJ White,
Ferdinand Cheirs, John II. Hoffecker,
Charles II. Baynard, Frank Corbit, John
S. Beeson, Jonathan E. George, H. H.
Billany, John Thompson and John p.
Jester
William P. Biggs was sworn and read
from the court assessment list of White
Clay Creek hundred that John Levey
was duly credited with payments of poll
tax to the amount of 5000 in February,
1892, which qualified him up to and in
rlnHfrcr 1900 frh. ,Fr, -.
evidence without objection, and John
Levey, the principal witness for the
prosecution, was sworn.
He testified that he livedlin Christiana,
this county and on September 10 last he
applied to George w. Currinder, regis
trar for the Eastern district of White
Clay Creek hundred, to be registered
presenting tax receipt signed by James
IL Smalley, tax collector for that dis
trict and that the defendant, Currinder.
refused to wholly qualify him, though
he consented to partially qualify him.
He didn't know whether the defendant
said that he would register him the fol
lowing Saturday if after investiga-
ing the validity of the receipts,
it proved to be good, He
refused to be partly qualified. Currin-
der's two daughters who acted as his
clerks and Supervisors Gillis and Arnold
Naudain were present He had heard
that several receipts simil II to that he
carried had been refused. He had a
Dickey tax receipt in his pocket and
thought that Currinder was aware of It,
though he was not sure. Didn't know
whether Currinder offered to qualify
him on the Dickey receipt
or not. He told defendant
that he wanted to be registered on the
Smalley receipt. He didn't remember
whether or not defendant offered to
register him if Smalley would identify
the receipt. When he turned from the
registry window William f. Smailey.
brother of the tax collector, who was
present saw the Dickey receipt Smalley
asked him why he didn't get registered
on that receipt and he replied because
] don't have to-
The government rested its case at the
conclusion of the witness testimony and
Attorney Lyman for the defense asked
the court to instruct the jury to render
a verdict of acquittal on the ground
that the prosecution had failed to sub
stantiate the charge in the indictments,
which he court refused to do.
George w. Currinder was sworn He
said that he refused to qualify Levey on
the Smalley receipt until he could assure
himself of its validity because he had
seen many blank receipts bearing
Smalleys alleged signature. Ad
mitted that the Dickey receipt upon
which he agreed to register the prosecut.
ing witness was not examined by him
and that he only thought it genuine be.
cause he had never seen fraudulent
one. He told Levey when he refused ia
register him that he would look into the
matter and asked him to call again. He
agreed to qualify him on the Dickens
receipt but Levey said: ''nO, - II
you will" He had refused many Others
bearing similar receipts She same day
but the next week, on the 18th, he
thought he visited the tax collector. ex
amined the duplicates and after assuring
himself that the receipts were genuine
registered the holders on the next regis
tration day, Saturday tine 18th. He wa
arrested on the l4th.
James H. Smalley testified that the de
fendant had visited him between tn
10th and the 18th, he couldn't give tn
date, and satisfied himself that the re
ceipts were genuine
w. +. Smalley, Thomas Morrison
Arnold Naudain, James X. Donaldson
and William +. Weir corroborated tn
testimony of the defendant, after whicl
the defense rested and stated that
would be satisfied with charge by tn
court, to which the district attorney oil
jected.
District Attorney Watson briefly at
dressed the jury and a recess was take
until 2 o'clock After the recess Attoi
ney Lyman will argue for the defense.
The judges charge and verdict al
expected to-day.