Gloucester County Democrat., 1894-07-26

1t is impossible to give even synopsis of
counsel's argument. Four hours were
allotted to each side, but this time was
overrun by the contestants The States
side of the case was represented by the
two Prosecutors of the Pleas, Samuel E.
and Belmont Perry, aud it must be said of
the argument for the State that it was all
that could be made ont of the material at
his hands. The theory of the State was
that Patrick Kirwan followed Charles
Cans out as he went away from Germania
Park on the night of the 18th of January;
that he overlook him aud dealt him o
fatal blow and Immediately buried his
body in the sand where it remained until
some time on the Saturday night previous
10 its being found in front of Faunce's
fishery. The defence insisted that this
theory was disposed of by the testimony
of Curtis me and Judith Carson who
came to Germania Park on the road by
which Charles Cans went out and also left
the hotel and went out the same road 20
minutes before the defendant left the
hotel. Messrs. Moore and Pancoast made
able arguments, dealing with the testi-
mony in great detail and with great par
ticulariy, contending that the States case
was contradictory and impossible. The
points upon which the defence argued its
case were substantially these;
1st. That the State had failed to prove
that any blow had been struck by Patrick
Kirwan on the person OF Charles Cans, at
Germania Park, on the 18th of January.
I'd. That it was impossible for Patrick
Kirwan to have followed Charles Cans mp,
struck him fatal blow, and have drowned
the body, and arrived at Sebastian Cans
house at the time stated by the States
witnesses.
3rd. That the State failed to show that
Charles Cans came to his death by violence
as the testimony was overwhelmingly in
favor of the defendant, and that Charles
Cans died from drowning.
4th. That the only witnesses who pre-
vented verdict of not guilty without a
defence were Judith Carson and Joseph
Bennett and his wife, whom the defence
showed to be entirely unworthy of belief
5th. That the character of Patrick Kir-
wan was such as to preclude any idea that
he could commit the murder.
At the conclusion of Prosecutor B Bslmont
perry's argument the Court announced
that it felt obliged to charge the jury with
out delay. The charge OF His Honor was
followed with great interest.
CHARGE OF THE COURT.
Gentlemen Of the Jury
This case has now reached the point
where all has been said, in the form Of
testimony and by way Of argument that
can be said upon the issue raised by the
Indictment. You are now to determine
whether the contention of the State is, in
your opinion, substantiated or not. To
assist you in the discharge of that duty ii
becomes the duty of the Court to instruct
you in relation to the law under which
you must make your investigation and
reach your conclusion. You are the final
arbiter of the facts and the Court is the ex-
FOUNDER Of the law, and it is your duty ia
accept the law as it is given by the Court
and apply it to the facts, in reaching your
conclusion.
The Indictment you are called uron to
try is one wherein the State of New Jer.
sey, through the Grand Jury sitting in
this county, has presented Patrick Kirwan
charging him with having caused the death
of Charles Cans on the Twelfth day Of
January last. The crime charged is man
slaughter. Without going into the dis
tlnction between voluntary and inYolun-
faru m manalannlf1,z IL ia os,nr,erb A.,