Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-10-02
FAHEY'S CASE With THE JURY
They Retired at 2.45 O'Clock
NSa Tuesday Afternoon.

r
a lney Retired at 2.45 O'Clock
S9.t4 TuasdavN; Aftarnoap.f
A a 7l '-'S' XIX
n -
ANN prhHAtMrn nIlr All hunItT
\ ANU REMAINED UUI ALL MILL
m. ..s5s
49, ta-
The Charge of the Court an Inn
poi ee'iie ms
& --------
Gas. 4. the FIRST ~ Tho KIND, In mi. st.,.
ma win aasar, ,sm,,,ra 60 az rss s.se
ronnsaI Na,.s II, Exa.,,,ia,, -, =, ~,
$500. 81 70 uii
'ne Sha'se.
-
n..,... 49,. so
49, ~. 5lop w ~ Sien
NsiMau e wy opehinR aoufess ior tne St.ae
onuay aiternoon' ne saiu inat me de-
ssn5I sSuiu ieT W ~. lW9 .hinss.tne con
W y. xuL ls ny iahss' ~ httacN
nessss. AZ 10 WiIIiano camnbel He sav I'M,
-. ~ =, ~. ~, ,aiis G sdia 70 MIN
sso way 70 De,amhIe wy inat ne was
Sss.s,, ~ t ny wtess s.niu aiu sMear W
tnk 70 sate l,ie n snioeis ~ the Levy
Soust. NJ. hicnaras oeelare9 that me m
Se.t " 1oo Soun.y oiilcers nau hot oegun
N oetopeT, lsoy; an9 tnere was No talK OF
arIeating Levy Qonrtme2 linen. inns alone
49, eunsiens " uanu HilllaIn oaiIppsii
~. nnony, Mr. Menaras urged. ne neid
Ess satroil q. Jersey naa snlLn US agaihs s
S,, anu uoupteu uIteranses dorsey ~,
o1tea 70 pansenl. Mr. hchards sala
~ teit olily az usience the testithohy OF
sey, ,s Nh No. pe salo, #as euhnihgiy Trying
ae MN niilisell rom lhe moment Nahsare
- ms iaise t ~ Inny
svnn biggss lor fahey, began MS ADDRESS
we Jury.
20 not WISH 70 etiicise me attorney
9sssseEai ~ PERFORMING me iunellons OF DIS
Sl.ee, wnicn ne nus hilea win .sienai
no., salo M. Digs 90 NOT WISH
Tssn 70 Suggest What ne snouia nave cone.
80 W, W. 'ei it you Milat "ouiu hahe uohe
49,. - osen auorney- genera. = %oula nave
~. Frederic tansant ana oaieo Johnson IN
tan ~ sYon h.usr reprua.y iast us couiu
n[Ve gottfn jury 20. conYlcs theni.
4 ~ IN eontinning this ADDRESS tuesday
81. Digs pqihtea out that hlchara Falis
Hntraolcleu sansant as 70 circumstances Of
NE meeting OF tahey and Lynn with pansant
~ tne olrara street houses. Fans said tahey
sly Lynn ana pansant at once; Nansant
AZ faney stayea Win tnem awhile. Inc
atlorney also reminded the jury that pansant
vas trying to secure evidence. In his defence
ssaanss me enarge OF perjury, ana not
pelhR hoie 10 meet the charge, had nothlng
els to do but 70 throw himself upon the at
sorhey-seherai anu nope he would lei up on
nhm.
mr. Digs saiu ne was shocked when Jonn-
son ana Fansant went ON the STAND ana UNI
slnshingy admitted. that they had sworn
hs,seiy IN the Lynn trlal. -
A. Nansant mad made up his mind IN 100
hnat II members OF tho Levy Court were
prougnt 70 trial ne would go on the witness
stang ana testify 70 anything under oath;
IN the Lynn case the attorney general had
s0iu tne Jury that +they couid not pelieve
vhnshnb on ms oath now could ne now ask
tnem 70 pei,eye mimi IN closing, Mt: biggs
said that all that made life worth living for
4 MS client was IN tine lury's names.
Inc hnai speech on behalf OF the state
WAS Haue py httorney-Seneral herbert II.
Ward, VINO sald ne would press Tor q convlc-
ZION. Inc defendant was entitled TO the
penent 81 every reasonable doubt, out there
IA was eYldenee enough 10 snow MS guilt.
III MT. WARD discussed tine gravity OF the
4 oHenoe OF supornatlon OF perjury. In the
~ Lynn case there was involved, not only the
Il interests OF the State, but also the character
sgot Whteman' Yet the Jury accepted the
4 inherent probability OF Whiteman's story
Aand brushed aside the testimony of Lynn
iana Vansant, ana the BIN witnesses VINO tesi-
Rned against Whiteman's character for YER
laclty.
III When the State presents evidence suf-
tcient TO convict 1t Is the duty OF the jury
70 convict.
Ii witness VINO mao been suborned to
Commit perjury IS held not TO be good
witness against the man who suborned him,
k.then there would be no protection for the
lpublic, Z H..
IL In reply 10 MI. blggs criticism as to the
i order of conducting the Vansant and Fahey
I prosecutions, Mr.. Ward said:
a II appears by Johnson's testimony that
4 johnson did not nix the time between Octo-
Der loth and I'm, ne DID not hx any data
Hexcept between the 9th and 18th of October.
FIVE did not have proof that what johnson
said was untrue. We didn't indict johnson
# because some lawyer would have shown that
we nld not nave the evidence. But that Is
i.a d1ftef6nt position from what have.
Within lew days johnson has testified that
II ne committed perjury and what future
grand jury may do with him cannot now
Hadetermine, The future OF johnson depends
Just as soon as We found out the testi-
hdnd tine evidence of the Duncans, We began
f,,fle Investigation 10 prove Vansant guilty.
IN ne believed he had committed perjury. His
MOI unsel got continuance anu at the May
M I'm Vansant confessed to me. in the pres
sal Ice OF his counsel Should ne have been
4 lied before the man who suborned him? Is
us crime any worse than fahey's, II Fancy
guilty!
Y "a As 70 Vansant's confession Mr. Ward said
GT 10 by confession that we secure redemp-
Iaabn. Vansant came to him without induce,
#tgsnt and made confession, and that con-
E,ssssion must have been the truth. undoubt-.
R,tiiy he was pinched. Why should he impli-
kpte Patrick Fancy, unless 1t was true? He
MXved fahey MS nveihood for hye or six
EfaE.
J HI BY the undoubted testimony Lynn and
Elahey were together at the place where
Hansent says the subornation of perjury
kfok place.. Nov that Lynn is the under
pg. Eahey cams und attempted to say that
nh did 1t.
Hf Whatever ansants hopes ware, nobody
6as been prouaced TO snow that the attorney
J Veneral made any promise to him.
ALL OF the Six witnesses who testified against
ErfNansant's character, live had been employees
Ifot Eahey. Whatever Nansant's reputation