The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-07-29
TWO PROMINENT TRIALS
Criminal Cases Prosecuted in Courts
of This District.
The Prosecution of Richard Law
renee for Attempting the Assassi-
ration of Andrew JaciSEon-Acquit-
ted on the Ground of Insanity
1'rinI and Suicide of DIR. Gardiner.

| great criminal trial is like drama. 1t
exeites the public while it lasts; its interest
/ is in one chief actor. who in turn is asso-
! ciated with other dramatis personae and
/ the climax is eagerly awaited. The de-
/ noument over, the tickle public turns to
| other subjects of interest, and forgets the
play which but lately engrossed their at
/ tentlOr The curtain is down. the lights
are out. So remarkable. however. have
been some legal dramas that it may be ex-
! otto some interest. even now, to review,
! briefly, facts connected with some of the
/ most remarkable cases tried in the courts
OF the District of Columbia
| Few of the residents of this city are,
perhaps. cognizant Of the circumstances
attending the sttemp: made upon the life
of Andrew Jackson by Richard Lawrence.
| The President was coming out of the ro-
| tunds of the Capitol, having attended the
funeral of Warren r. Davis, member Of
/ Congress. when Lawrence snapped two ais-
tolls at him, both of which hung fire. The
would-be assassin was Immediately arrest
ed and put upon trial for the crime, the
law at that time. only extend to fine and
| Imprisonment. The plea of the defence
was insanity. and an attempt was made by
the prisoners counsel to substantiate their
claims before the grand jury. To this action
the District Attorney objected, and the
tions OF the court. Judge Cranch, then
I I Il. \
that every person was presumed in law to
be sane until the contrary vas proved, and
hence it was unnecessary to summon Wit
resses to prove the sanity of the accused.
w. l.. Brent & Son were the attor-
neys for the defence. The case came on
for trial April H. 1885, before Judge
Cranch. of the Circuit Court, the indict-
ment being for an assault upon Andrew
Jackson. President of the United States.
with intent TO kill and murder him. &c
was shown to the satisfaction Of the jury
| that the defendant was really insane. IN
| that he supposed himself to be the King
Of England and also of the United States.
this country being. in his view, an ap-
pendage OF England, and that Andrew
Jackson was in his way in the enjoyment
Of his right; and that the assault upon
the President VS. done under that de-
fusion. The jG-y. after five minutes de-
liberation, brought in the following YER
dict:
I'VE find the prisoner not guilty, he be-
| ing under the influence of insanity at the
time he committed the act" The court e.
manded the prisoner. being Of the opinion
from the evidence that it would be dan
gerous for him to be at large while under
such mental delusion
The AcauittnI of a Firebug.
| Richard H White was indicted for arson
March 30. 1886. he having set fire to the
| Treasury Building March 80, 1888 Brent
C Brent were also his counsel, the attorne?
for the prosecution being J. R. Key.
Whites lawyers moved that the Indictment
be quashed on the ground that more than
two years had elapsed between the burning
OF the Treasury and the finding of the in
| dictment. and pleaded the act OF Congress
| OF April 80. 1890. to the effect that no per-
son should be prosecuted, tried, or pun
| ished for any offence not capital nor for
any fine or forfeiture under any penal
statute, unless the indictment or informa-
ton for the same should be found or insti-
| tuted within two yc>-s from the time of
the committing Of the offence or mourning
| the fine or forfeiture; provided that
nothing in said statute contained should
extend TO any person fleeing from jus
tice.''
The request for quasaing the Indictment
| was refused by the court because, until -
fact should appear upon the trial, it could
not be certain that the person was not one
fleeing from justice, and the case accord
1 ingly came up for trial.
After long hearing the jury retired on
Saturday, December "a, 1896 and were l.ept
/ in their room I'm il the 9th, when they
were discharged because they could not
agree.
The case was given a second trial, on
! which occasion the following verdict was
delivered: We, the jury, are OF the
opinion that the oftence as charged was
committed by the prisoner. and We find him
not guilty upon the plea of limitation more
than two years having elapsed from the
committing OF the offence TO the finding of
the Indictment. This same case was giyel
two olher hearings. the final verdict being
substantially the same as that last de-
scribe1, and the prisoner was acquitted.
1t Is notable that while murder trials
sometimes give rise to comic incidents dur
ing their progress, some very d-amat C and
tragic features have been developed in
cases involving lesser crimes. Perhaps the
most dramatic trial on record in any court
was that of DIR. George A. Gardiner for
perjury, resulting from alleged fraudulent
claims brought by him against the United
States Government. His contentious We're,
in substance, as follows: That he had pUr-
chased valuable mine in the State of San
Luis Potosi, paying therefor S33O.392 which
he was working, and making in gross S2O,-
0G0 per month, his expenses being from
SI00 900 to $4,000 per month, and that on
the 21st of October, 1876. he was ordered
out of Mexico by the authorities, and thus
the value of his property, which he placed
at 100000, was entirely destroyed. He
presented evidence to the board of COM
missioners in the shape of authenticated
documents showing his ownership of the
mines and in November, 1850, presented
additional testimony, consisting OF a copy
OF his mining title taken from the book of
registry Of mines in the Office of the project
of Rio Verde sustained by affidavits.
1t was subsequently charged that all
this alleged testimony was spurious, and
DR.. Gardiner was indicted for the crime
of perjury March 1. 1923.
The attorneys for the defence were
Joseph II. Bradley and J. NJ. Carlisle; for
the prosecution. District Attorney Philip
r. Kendall and Henry May The defence
designed to establish four points:
l. That DR.. Gardiner had large mines.
@ That he was personally present at his
alleged mines in Langunillas through the
term of his mining operations.
8 That the alleged mines existed and
were of great value.
4. That the defendant was the owner of
these mines.
The District Attorney conducted the
prosecution on the ground that, in the
event OF any one of these points being
disproved the defendant was guilty. al
though 1t was undertaken to show that all
70. Col