Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1898-09-15


opinion upon the question whether the
verdict Of the jury was Just one in
view of the evidence, yet it is entirely |
proper for us to consider the other evil |
dence in the case for the purpose OF ar
irving at a conclusion as to the effect |
that the testimony to which exception |
was taken may have had upon the
minds Of the jury in arriving at their
verdict.
1t appears from the testimony of
Maria Hunt. the prosecuting witness,
that about midnight on April 8, 1898,
she was alone in the basement Of her
house. in the city OF Wilmington, her
husband being absent from home. and
her three children asleep in an upper
story. She heard a noise caused by the
moving Of the latch of the sitting room
door, and called twice "Billy," meaning
her husband. Hearing no response she
Immediately ran upstairs to the sitting
ROOM and as she was about to enter
the room saw the prisoner before her
with his clothes disarranged. As soon
as she saw him she ran screaming from
the house through the basement. When
captured by the officers the prisoners
clothing was still disarranged. The
prisoner himself was called as a wit
ness in his own behalf, and admitted
that he was the man who was in the
Hunt residence on the night In ques-
ton, and that he ran out as soon as
Mrs. Hunt appeared. He declared, how
ever that he was in the house for the
purpose of stealing. and not for the
i ftrr 40 3 .
charged in the Indictment Such was
the direct and positive testimony in the
case, but IL was very earnestly argued
in the court by the counsel for the
plaintiff in error that this testimony
was so weak and inconclusive as to the
material question of intent" that the
court could not conclude that the Jury
would have arrived at a verdict Of
guilty from that testimony alone. II
was contended with much force that
without the testimony of Thomas Nc
Goldrck, which was the testimony OBJ
| iected to, and which Is covered by the
assignment of error, the jury could. or
would not have reached a verdict Of
guilty against the accused Thomas Nc
Goldrick q seems, about the time Of
the alleged crime. was sitting IN his
own house at least a square away from
the Hunt residence. and hearing q
woman's scream, he walked to ME
front door and was there informed by
someone that a negro had broken into
a house and tried to commit rape on a
white woman This testimony was adj
. mitted over the objection Of the pris-
oner's counsel. and il was admitted as
Judge Grubb said TO show, in conee
quence of information received by he
witness, what he did"
It will be observed in the FIRST Dlac
that I'm the testimony Of Thomas Nc
Goljrick, the prisoner was not named
/ or I'M any way referred to. 10 would
seem to have been a remark, repeated
on the winners stand by McGoliriell
which was made by someone in the
street, unknown to the witness and a
a point some distance from the place
where Mrs. Hunt lived.
I It Is impossible for the court to oe
y how such a remark could have had an,
. weight or influence with lie jury ii
, making up their verdict. 10 could no
have had any tendency IT, prove tn
4 Identity Of the prisoner with the per
! son who committed the crime, because
NO allUs.On was made, directly or indi
rectly to him, by name or otherwise
And even if Il could be considered, il
, connection with other testimony. al
showing such identity, II could hav,
had no effect injurious to the prisone
in this regard. because the prisoner
himself when on the stand, admitted
a hn a.
saw in her house on the night in ques
: ton. In the second place, when TIT
testimony OF McGOldrick is consiGere,
in connection with the admission OF th
. prisoner and the testimony Of Mrs
. Hunt, the court is entirely unable q
perceive how 1t could have had thu
! slightest effect on the jury. The prize
. oner himself admitted that he wdn tn
person who broke into the house. S,
that much Of McGoldrick'e testimon,
. manifestly could not have had an.
: weight, and from the testimony OF Mrf
Hunt it clearly and conclusively ap
peared that no attempt whatever wa
, made to commit the crime Of rape Fl
crime moreover for which the prlsone
was not indicted Mrs. Hunt swore tina
- tAo oNtA a. sue paw tAif UAlnUMtI she INU
4 aud that he had no time or opporlunit
i, either to touch or to speak to neI
I Surely the indefinite and intangible tee
timony which McGoldrick was permit.
ted to give as to an attempt to commi
g rape, could have had no possible infu
? ence with the jury when It was aosa
lutely negatived by the testimony D
the prosecuting witness herself. An,
p In the third place, IL must be percectl.
obvious 10 anyone who examined al
d he testimony. that the jury could no
o have rendered the verdict they ii.
y w,ttCu' the evidence given by Mrs
n Hunt. which so far as It went wac ciea
p and POSITIVE. And when 1t is con sid
d ercl that Mrs Hunt was the pereoi
upon whom the prisoner wac CHARGE
II with intent to commit rape, AMI tina
3 ah7 was the only person pr sent excep
Il lhc prisoner, &c is clear that the testi
y many objected TO could not have lde
/. aLytf ~ to her testimony on the GuCs
ton Of "intent." or in any way kly
- strengthened the case Of the state.
II Va are forced therefore, to COM lud
that, whether the verdict was a prope
, one or rot nevertheless the jury base
their nuding upon the testimony q