The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1897-04-29
ASKING FOR INSTRUCTIONS
All the Evidence in the McMhOae
Case Before the Jury.
MR. DAVIS ASKED MORE TINE
He Wanted POstponement Until
This Afternoon. But Judge Brad
ley Declined TO Permit It--Argu-
ment in Progress Case May Be
Given To the Jury Tomorrow.


Criminal Court, No. ?, Justice Bradley
presiding, opened this morning with q
large crowd of spectators, attracted by the
McElheRe trial. The proceedings of the
day befOle closed with the rc-croSS-eXsnu-
nation OF the defendant, and the case
opened today with the examination of John
] Needing, VITO was called TO corohorate
McElhone's statement concerning the pro
curing of money or AtweI & Stuhblc-
field, as detailed yesterday. II was for
the purpose OF showing that the money was
turned over 10 Turner, hut upon objection
by DiSjucy Attorney Davis, the court eX-
GIuded the testimony
Samuel II CIO1t, McElhoae's fellow
clerk, in the Lihrart, was called 20 cor
rOborate Mr. MCElhole ia statement
made in his testimony touching copy Of
Idbragian SpofTord's signature found in
his possession. Upon Objection made by
MI Davis, Unis wIvhess' Testimony was also
excluded.
The defense here rested its case.
District Attorney Davis recalled Mr.
spofiord 10 show that the Library con
tained 50 many books and papers and
Collections of documents that even ell
ployes cannot be expected To know OF the
existence uf all particular papers. The
count excluded this testimony as irrelc-
want
defendant Turner was recalled. He de
MED that lie had ever sold a manuscript
10 McElhone. and also denied that he
had requested McElhone not TO mention
the Miller estate in tbs correspondence,
lest Mr. Ben iannn should write to The
heirs about ii. He was asked by Mr..
Davis if he lad called on McElhone since
their arrest, bat. upon objection by counsel
for defense. the question was ruled out.
At this point in the case District Attorney
Davis asked Tor a pCStpOnement until >
O'Clock. ia order 10 give time for the arrival
OF W + Benjamin, OF New York, a former
witness MI Davis explained That he de-
sired to recall Mr.. Ben iamin, with his
Ietttr-boeL, TO show that defendant MCEl-
hone hau never received a letter from air
BENJAMIN, as testified TO by the defendant,
assuring him that Mr.. Benja miG had be-
come convinced that the collection Of
papers offered for sale was ali right. "
Defendant had testified that, after being
advised OF the suspicion, he and Turner
had agreed that il grew cut OF rivalry in
business between William 4. and Walter
r BENJAMIN, and that This view was
strengthened by the reassuling letter from
william L Ben jamin. 1t was 20 prove
that 40 such letter was ever sent to or tc-
CCived by MCElhone that Nj Davis de
sired TO recall the alleged author uf the
letter Mr. MCElhone had stated that lie
received the letter, but had destroyed il. as
was hiS custom with letters after answering
them.
Justice Bradley declined TO permit the
delay. He said the defendan ut was on trial
for larceny, not for dealing in stolen goods
knowing them TO have been stolen, and
that tae receipt of the letter. is re cei vel,
would neither convict nor acquit of the
charge.
MIR. Davis announced the cloSeof the Gov
ernment's case. He then addressed the
court with view to suggesting instruC-
tiOns lie said il had been shown by the
evidence that tie defendant had guilty
knowledge of the abstraction. of four pa
peTs mentioned in the indictment. These
were the Sullivan paper, the roll Of the
regiment OF artifiCcrs. the Cortland Com
mission, signed by John Hancock, and the
William Williams letter. 1t was lar
ceny involving a conspiracy, and If the two
men together stole the papers. they We're
equally guilty The line OF argument was
that all who concur ia the commission Of
o crime are guilty Of the crime.
Er. Davis read the opinion in a case
where the party received a stolen article
without first knowing it TO have been
stolen, bat after iearning Of the theft
assisted in the ''aSportatIOn" OF the ar
ticle, and he was held 10 be guilty Of lar
ceny.
Air. Davis asked that. the court instruct
the 5ury TO the effect hat il it should be
bt5ieved that the defendant took the papers
described from the place Of original de-
post, or ii tie removed them from Turner'S
noon nj the Capitol, knowiugthem 10 have
been removed from the place OF original
deposit, with fclonious intent. il WAS lar
ceny; and IL it shall be believed McElhone
and Turner together removed them with
feloniouS intent, il was larceny. 1t was,
IN Mr.. Davis opinion, a violation of the
law OF 1873 to take away from the
Capitol. whether from the place of origi-
nal deposit or from Turner's room, any
thing shown 10 have been the personal
property OF the United States, and the
documents mentioned, he said, were per
sonal property.
Mr Douglas, OF counsel for the defend
ant, asked for but two instructions The
first was that the testimony Of an accom-
plice should be taken with caution, and
that il should be corroborated by other
Testimony TO establish the case.
The next prayer was, In substance, that
the defendant s letters and the testimony
Is 20 these can only be considered as af-
fecting lTis credlbility, and can have no
bearing upon the matters cont aimed in the
indictment. The letters should have no
weight
In respect OF what's known asthe Hshort |
indictment" charging the larceny of the |
NewbuEg letter and the Washington diary,
Mr. Douglas said it was established by the |
evidence that McElhone merely showed |
Turner the diary in the place whereit was |
kept, and that the latter afterward alb |
strected il and sent it away without the |
ooRnivance or AID OF McElhone. II any |
thing can be said Of tbet, Mr.. Douglas |
remarked. il 1s that McElhone knew that |
Turner stole fhe diary hut had not mar