Evening journal., 1902-06-14
CONTINUANCE IN
SHERIFF CASE
Defense Ayers That Import
ant Witness Is Absent
COURT REFUSES PARTICULARS
IOhn BiggS, Attorney, Argues to
e QuaSh The Indictment Against
Patrick FaheV
Defense Ayers That Import
COURT REFUSES PARTICULARS

In the Court OF General Sessions this
lmcinng, John Biggs argued ON the
ymotion to udasn the Indictment against
Patrick Fahey, for subornation of per-
1hy.
"a. Biggs moved to Quash the Ia
dictment on the sround that i. does
rot set out any onense against lie
laws Of the State of Delaware.
First The crime of subornnt;ol Fl
perjury has several Indispensable in
gredients. N-lcl must BE- cha ged IN
tnc Indictment OF 1t will be fataiiy dc
feCtivc, Tue testimony Of the Wit.le.g
srborned mus, be false II mlyt be
given Wilsllly and corruptly by the
witness. k1.ving it tc be false The
sulcrner must know or believe iAat
tae TESTIMONY OF the witress given ,r
ialout TO be gwen viii be fais1. lie
iaost know or believe that the witness
lHill wilfuliy anu corruptly tsstify 10
statements which he knows 20 be false.
Subornation of perjury is in its es-
sence, but a particular form of perjury
itseh. Both counts of the Indictment
charge the defendant, Patrick
Fancy, with havlps subornec OF pso.
lcured Frederick Nansant to swear that
ae. Frederick vansant. upon so.a, dag
= the month g Cc,ober, in he year
l5fO was at John Lynns hou and
heard the said conversation. In order
II is charged 1. beth counts OF tAe
irdictment. th-t frederick Vaaaaut
lsN Cie. az the triai of John Lyna, that
40. the said h Ne. trick Vansan' ',~
n cen the hours IT and o'c..ck 10
tle afternooh upon some day between.
he 9th and l2.h days of October.
lizard the said CO ,ersaiOn. In order
@ constitute = sec. indictment FOR
trbornation Of pcf.,Iy, the da.s.1ant
IL nick faaay. must be chaTgs with
ta'ing suboned Or procured tie wit
ness. Frederick Nansant. TO swear
falsely.
Second. Though a party who IS
arged with iUn:ration OF btiury
Ahow that the testimony OF wliltss
wl en- no caisa ~uuld be falss. yet n
no did not know that witness would
lwilfully testify to a statement know
- il to be fz'sa. he cannot be CON
lVitted of the c'iEls charged There
fore. both counts of the indictments
lafc bad. becaus tEs:o "a no avcrnrcnt
ther that .ae defendant knew that
the witness knew HAT the ;estinauv
he was instigated 20 give was false.
! Mr. Biggs held that the Indictment
was not clear enough and did NOT
properly inform the defendant what he
would be called upon to meet He
said that the indictment is vague as
TO what part the Attorney-G General
would stand upon. The State cites
many authorities to sustain the in
ldictment
DEFENSE RULED AGAINST.
Chief Justice Lore, in announcing
the courts decision in the Nc
Daniel case this morning, said
They did not think the court should or
der the State to file z bill OF particu-
lars. The motion was. therefore, re-
fused.
Mr. Hilles then asked that the coun-
sci be allowed to note an exception so
that they might appeal to the Supreme
Court.
The Chief Justice replied that the
court did not think the decision an
exceptional matter The Chief Justice
added that the decision was final.
Mr. Higgins thought the defense was en-
titled to the exception as a matter OF
record. To this view the court assent
ed. allowed the exception TO be noted
for what it is worth.
CONTINUANCE PRAYED FOR.
Mr.. Hilles then asked that the case
against the Sheriff be continued until
the September term of court, because
of the absence Of material witness.
In support of the motion Mr.. Hilles
filed the following affidavit:
The affidavit of Sheriff Mcdaniel
AYERS that the defendants have a ma
lterial witness who resides and now is
loutside of the State of Delaware. that
the name of said witness is Cyril p.
Narian, and that said witness resides in
the city of New York; that this de-
ponent and said other defendants are
unable to secure the attendance of the
said witness at this term of court, but
that the said defendants believe they
will be unable to secure his attendance
at the next term, that the
mature of the testimony of
said witness is to prove that Montya-
loo A. Cole. who is a witness for the
State in the prosecution of said indict-
ment, and who, as such, appeared and
testified before the Grand Jury before
they found the said indictment, and
without his testimony the said indict-
4ment could not have been found, had
made threats in the presence Of Cyril p.
Varian that he (the said Cole) would
make this deponent and the said de-
PENDANTS Harvey b. Wigglesworth and
Walter Rash, suffer because of certain
conduct OF the said three last-named
defendants because of which
they believe that they could not
safely and properly 80 to trial without