The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1902-05-27
John L. semp1e Acquitted.

pleased to hear that jury of his fellow.
men have decided he was not guilty of q
crime against the government. Those
who have followed this trial have been
unable to see how conviction could fol
low, as the governments case was GER
tainly not strong one.
The charge to the jury was delivered
yesterday morning Judge Mcpherson,
in his charge said:
There are several indictments against
this defendant. / need not mention spe-
officially what they are. You are to CON
slider the matter generally and to render a
verdict accordingly. The charge against
the defendant is that he is an accomplice;
that he aided and abetted in the making
of counterfeit plate.
'"There are one or two general observa-
tions | wish to make, and first as to char
acter. A mans character is different
from his reputation. His reputation, the
general opinion of his fellow members of
society, may be good, while his character
may not be So inasmuch as he may be
guilty of things which are concealed from
the public view. A mans reputation is
his most valuable asset, and the defend
ant has certainly shown that his previous
reputation is good. This matter you
must carefully consider in arriving at a
verdict.
The case against the defendant rests
principally upon the testimony of Taylor
and Bredell. These men are accomplices,
and it is the duty of the Court to tell you
that it is dangerous thing to convict up
on the uncorroborated testimony of an
ana rllina Dharo ic hnxuouar fof
testimony which is alleged by the Gov
eminent to be corroborative, and about
this l shall presently speak.
"You must first consider whether the
plates were or were not made in that pris-
on. If they were not, then the Govern
ment's case falls to the ground. You
must determine this from the evidence.
If you believe the story of the four wit
nesses who testified that they brought to
the prison various articles necessary to
the work of counterfeiting then the con-
clusion must be well nigh irresistible that
the work was done in prison as commended
by the Government.
For the defence it is urged that the
whole story is extremely improbable.
Frequently, however, the improbability
of a thing is the very best evidence of its
truth. With the exception of one or two
articles the concurrent testimony of all
the witnesses for the Government is that
things could be very easily brought into
the cell. From the testimony the keepers
never examined closely the contents of
the cell, and so once the articles were
brought in they may have escaped detec-
ton. There is, however, the further tes-
timony of the keepers that all baskets and
bundles brought to prisoners were exam
ined. This you must carefully weigh and
determine the extent. and character of
their examination. You have moreover
some conflicting expert testimony as to
whether or not these plates would have
been made by hand. This testimony,
however, is matter of opinion, and will
be overridden if you are satisfied from the
other evidence that they were actually so
made.
''Now, what, if any, was Samples con-
nection with the case 1t is charged that
he suggested the scheme. There are
some discrepancies between the testimony
given by the principal witnesses at this
trial and the former trial. The serious
ness of these discrepancies you must de-
termine Slight discrepancies, however,
frequently are evidence of the truth of a
story If the stories differed in none of
their details it might look like manu-
featured tale Now, you must consider
the motive, if there is any, back of the
story of Taylor and Bredell. From the
testimony there is no evidence that there
was any hostility between the two men
and the defendant. But because there is
no apparent motive it does not follow that
one does not exist
Judge Mcpherson then said the case
was essentially conflict of veracity be-
tween Taylor and Bredell and Semple.
If the testimony, he said, of Taylor and
Bredell, were eliminated from the case,
there would not be sufficient evidence to
convict the defendant. He called the
iury's attention to what the Government
contended was testimony corroborative of
the story of Taylor and Bredell. The
number of visits paid by Semple to the
prison, the visits to Brockaway, the al
legged remark to William Bredell after the
notes had been discovered that
he (Semple) would be all right eff the
boys didn't squeal on him, these were all
items said Judge Mcpherson, which the
jury must consider to see if they possessed
the significance the Government contend
ed for. In conclusion, Judge Mcpherson
said that the defendant was entitled to
every reasonable doubt.
After the jury had retired Lawyers
Murphy and Budd asked that the jury be
recalled, as they feared that certain things
said in the charge might be misunderstood
by the jury. The principal of these
was Judge McPherson's remark that eff
the jury believed that the $3.50 check
given by the prisoners to Semple was for
the purpose of procuring $50 new 81
notes, then that incident had an import
ant bearing on the prisoners guilt, but if
it was simply as fee, then its significance
ceased"
Lawyer Murphy commended that if it
was given as. a fee then its significance
was very material, as it was a fiat con
tradietion to the prisoners story Judge
Mcpherson explained to the jury that
when he said that if it was given as fee
its significance ceased, he meant it ceased
so far as it had reference TO Semple's
guilt The jury then retired.
At 1915 court took a recess until
O'Clock, but it was 230 before Judge Nc
Pherson received the verdict of acquit
tai. The jury went out at 11.30.