The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1898-05-25
TESTIMONY
IS ALL IN.
But Case is Interrupted by
aQuestion Affecting the
Prisoners Reputation.

Yesterday afternoon all the testimony
in the Fisher case was heard by tho Oyer
and Terminer Court jury, which has the
mans fate in hand Argument would
have been made, tho courts charge deiiv-
cred and a verdict reached, in all probabil.
ity, had MT kuo.ty question arisen
which compelled the court to adjourn un-
til decision could be prepared.
Julius Reed, OF No. $40 w. Sixth street,
testified that he was awakened bv q
woman's screams OH the night Of April 0.
He aftsrward saw Mrs. Hunt who said
man was in her husbands home. The
witness saw Fisher in the yard Of the house
and with the assistance Of Mrs. Hunt cap
tured him. The cross examin alton reveal.
ed nothing now. Thomas BlcGoldrick
told q similar story.
Mr.. Hunt said he was OH his way home
when he heard his wife scream. He buried
and upon entering found the rear of the
house open. His clothing indicated that
he had attempted to commit feonious as.
sault.
james Thomp;on testified concerning
the capture. Detective Wistil and Officer
Payne to seeing o disarrangement OF the
clothes OF tho prisoner AZ the station
house.
In opening the defense Mr. Nlelds aid
he would show Fishers purpose was only
to rob the house. Ho then put he prisoner
on the stand and he acknowledged going
into the house. While in room n woman
appeared. She screamed and the prise
ran. He detailed the chase through the
house and his capture in the yard as the
STATES witness os described. He denied that
his object was 10 oassault Mrs. Hunt.
Upon cross-eXnmination Fisher told Mt.
Cooper that ho was missionary. He also
said he had been before the court twice be-
fore. Following up the matter IF reputa-
tion Mr. Cooper asked the prisoner if he
had notlbeen accused of breaking iuto the
residence of Maria Hartmann, but before
tho man could answer Mr.. Nleldi object
ed. Tho contention was that by answcc-
ing such u question, tho prisoner would
open himself to CONVICTION OF the crime.
The court held that the case was too scri-
ouS. 1t would be different ,howeve r, in
triiiing case. Moreover the court thought
that rs Fisher had never been convicted OF
the offence ho was not bound to answer.
Mr. Mel again objactel to Mr.. CoSpnr
asking The prisoner it he had been convict
ed for houscbreaking and cited authori.
ties which proved that tho prisoner was
not bound to answer such quo tion' Tho
contention Of the authorities was that tho
Court rec ord was the best evidence of the
mans court record Mr.. White argued
that the examination Of p.isoner-Tit-
ness regarding such question WAS Gus ON.
ary, which Mr. Nicl admitted. 1t was
wrong nevertheless, he said.
Mr. White raised the point CT repua a
tion Of II prisoner-witness when he had
been out Of Jail then reformed. He asked
If tho court record had the same effect
then He made use Of the remark to
prove what he con ,idcrel tho utter fool
ishKess of Offering !he record as tho best
evidence when man could say wh2ther
or not he had been criminal such u
rerod before us would make it almost inn
ros, ible for him to become honest. The
question so interested tho court that it
preferred MOTTO give an opinion until the
question was more fully argnod.