Evening journal., 1893-11-28
A QUESTION OF INTENT.
Text of the Courts Charge in
the Watson Chippey Case.
DEADLY WEAPON STATUTE RULING

Wnl Enforce the Law Against Offend
ers-Possession OF "A Weapon Presump-
tive But Not Conclusive Evidence.
The appeal case Of Samuel D. Forbes.
d. b. a VS.. Mayor and Council Of VIII
miugton, p. b r.. was tried in the
Superior Court yesterday afternoon. City
Solicitor Elliott conducted the case for
the city. Ii. c. Conrad and II. H. Ward
represented Forbes, the defendant below
and the plaintiff above.
After making a short statement con-
cerning the case Mr. Elliott offered In
evidence two Deeds conveying the
property now involved from Helen g.
Price to Samuel d Forbes This action
was to show that Forbes owned the
property at the time the nuisances ex-
listed.
Samuel w. Shultz, who was executive
officer of the Health Department in 1891,
testified that he made an official visit 20
Forbes's property on Franklin street,
near Fifth, aud found the water closet
TO be a nuisance The board instructed
him 20 have it abated within FIVE days
Mayor E g. Shortlidge was sworn. He
said that as member Of the Board of
Health he visited the Forbes property
and found the place in bad condition
and there had been some excavation and
the stones banked up with earth.
Port Physician Springer, ex ofiicio
member of the Board of Health. testified
that he also visited the place and found
the well not more than sixteen or eigh.
teen inches deep He was certain that
there had been an attempt at excava-
tion.
Ex-secretary OF the City Board Of
Health William H. Lee also visited the
place and testified that two places were
complained or The one nearest Franklin
street was set up on stones.
% this testimony the city rested.
II II Ward asked the court to in
struct the jury to bring in verdict of
not guilty, as there had been no evidence
that there had been any excavation He
read the ordinance requiring vaults to be
not less than six feet deep The court
refused his request. Then Mr. Ward
contended that the city must prove that
the we'll was constructed after March IA
1882, as prior to that time it was no
crime to construct such well and not
an offense against the ordinance to
maintain it alter that time If it had
been previously constructed
Mr.. Elliott replied that it was the
( business of the defense to prove that it
was constructed prior to March Il, 1882.
The court told him that in the absence
Of proof it could be held that the well
was constructed prior to the ordinance.
Mr. Elliott said that the city could not
prove the time Of the construction. The
chief Justice told him it was unfortunate
for his case, and directed the jury "a
End a verdict against the city This II
did Immediately.
Toughs Need Not Rejoice.
Chief Justice Lore stated that the
court had been misunderstood or mis-
represented concerning its instructions
TO the jury in the case of the State vs.
| John Cullen, who was indicted aud tried
for carrying concealed a deadly weapon
and acquitted because he made a state
ment, believed by the jury, that h'
bought the razor, which was found OF
his person, for use in shaving hin sell
on board an oyster boat. He wal
arrested for drunkenness and whel
searched at the City Hall the razor, il
its case, was found upon him.
-he court instructed the Jury q
acquit him II it believed his statement
as It did not come under the meaning oi
the statute.
The attorney generals stand in thr
case was that simply finding Of a wespoI
on mans person was sufficient evidenc
to convict him and the jury must rende
such verdict The court took a NOR
liberal view Of the matter. IL held tha
while the finding of a weapon was pre-
sumplive evidence it was not conclusiv
evidence under the intent of the statute
and the jury must decide whether il col
sidered the prisoner guilty Of an infraC
tion of the law.
ln the statement made by the cour
yesterday afternoon it reiterated the in
structions already given. and said the
did not tend TO repeal the statute agains
, carrying concealed deadly weapons. @
I the contrary, the court is determined I
: do all it can to break up the practice, bu
10 does not propose to act unde
q rule which will fine or imprison ma
who is taking his rszor to be honed, hi
knife to be ground or his revolver 20 tn
shop for repairs; neither does It propos
to compel msn engaged in such legit
7 mate offices to carry bis pistol or knit
@ exposed in a belt or his razor exposed {
. his hand But any person who caunC
. satisfy the Jury that the wespon foun
e upon him is carried for a legitimate pu
, pose must suffer the penalty of the Law
}. The sentences already imposed by IL
{ court show conclusively that it has n
s sympathy for the fire eater or tough WI
e carries weapons for purposes other tha
a those Of legitimate character.
e In the divorce case Of Coleman v
Coleman, r K Cochran, Jr , secured
r weeks extension Of time for the retuI
d Of the commissioner.
y Statute in No Wise Repealed.
p The ruling Of the court in the case b.
occasioned much comment, and Civ,
i rise to erroneous ideas, particular
q among the lawless classes Speaking
the matter Chief Justice Lore said:
Il The statute is in no wise re- ealed
Il AFT scted by the decision of the court, b
Ie will be enforced against all persons ca
M ying deadly weapons out Of sight, wi
cannot satisfactorily account 10 the ju
b for the possession of the same for sot
legal and proper purpose, he decisio
4. in effect, being this: That the possessi
ID Of deadly weapon out of sight
ye presumpiive evidence Of Garry ing co
cealed deadly weapon, but is not concl
slve evidence and the defendant 10