The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1905-01-14


who had conducted the investigation had
earned the gratitude of the community.
His Honor then proceeded, substantially,
as follows
The case was one of the gravcsJt imp0r-
| tance. Grave to the prisoner because
his life WAS mt stake and grave to the
State because the people whose concern
it WIS, expected that II just verdict be
| rendered.
1t WAS indiSputably shown that rob-
berry WHS the motive for the crime. But
who was behind the motive! The party
whoever he WINS, that committed the
crime had gotten Mr.. Constablc'S money
and watch Two persons had presented
themselves MS possible or probable per-
pctratorS rf the crime. One was the
| priSoncr-thc other unknown whose
name WIS unknown and whose dcscrip-
tons by witnesses varied somewhat but
whose presence in the vicinity of the
| crime on the eve of its commission.
was rs we'll established as was any other
| fact in the case. Where did the Court
| find any proof of robbery MS IL motive
| for the crime on the part of the prisoner
save that he owed BuSby whose demand
for his money or his wagon welS convey
ed to the prisoners wife by Mrs. BuSby
the day the crime was committed? But
| it was not conveyed to Holland until af-
ter he reached home frUm Frenchtown
| in the evening. The theory of the State
was that the prisoners whole family was
! involved in the crime. Another phase of
the States theory WAS that the design to
lTOb Mr.. Constable WAS conceived several
weeks or mGnthS before the crime waS
committed. Not Il eHcintila of proof had
been offered to establish this. The the
Dry was, thus reduced to mere Sprcula-
ton and vanished into thin air.
! The other person had been shown to be
probably II tramp. In the choice between
| the two there WAS nothing to warrant
| the Court in prcnounCing the guilt of the
prisoner. The States argument WIS able
and ingenious hut the vice in it wrlS in
asking that contradictions of the prison
cr'N I've taken for his Impeachment and
| that others "f his statements he accepted
.,,r true. This w2S contrary to the cS-
! tahIishcI rule. Because the prisoner had
complied with Mr.. Con>tnhlr'~ request,
to 90 ANA tell his wife. he had been put
in peril Of hi,' life. His GRAND called
for speed. 1t was not for him to turn
inside He had executed his mission with
dispatch. intelligence and fidelity.
I'VE know that Mr.. Constable talked
with the man who shot him. and that he
IVrHd with him The slayer must have
felt rrinolSr and he wis moved He
trnk NO risk and uttered En words but
what were rrcrs~nry and disappeared
just ~ he could have done. had Mr..
| Constable been shot dead.
| 1t had been testified that Holland said
| II white mHn came with Mr.. ConStablcS
message. Now suppose that II oolorcd
man had come to- Il white mans yard
with Il like message would he not have
said II Cclorcd man had brought it? 1t
| would have been prudent and natural on
the white mans part TO have so said
| But ArahcllH tottman (aS his Honor
was hero reminded by his associate.
Judge Brown had told the prisoner to
ask if the '>icll man Were black OF
white and gHvc her reason by saying she
| Thought it might he her husband. Mr.
Con>tab had told Miss Wilson it was
not Hops and Holland who had com
mittcd the crime, when she read him the
| Baltimore Suns special from Elkton on
the shooting in which she had omitted
| portion noting the two mcE'S detention.
but n white man. probably Il tramp. 1t
had been argued that Holland had been
nfrnid Ia face Mr.. Constable. Mr.. Con
stable told DR.. steele thai the man had
searched hi, pockets. He laid stress on
| the voice or hi, naSSllart. Why did he
rot recognize H"'and'> voice when
heard hy him again? If it were conccd-
ed - true that Holland described Mr.
Crn-,nllr'- watch /" Burllins. as told by
the l1tt"r. than would be Il suspicious
circumstance. But standing alone. tn"
| Il, - Of l,, nt
| itself work fer AN inference of Hollands
guilt
The ,am,. oath bound the Court as
| / onnL iurHY. a"l its members could not
| say in the presence of Almighty God
that. according to the law and tn" evil
,lrncr the prisoner WIS guilty. 1t should
| lc source of satisfaction to the com
munity that the Courts verdict was not
merely one of rot proven" but one alb
| Nolutrly Of met guilty" Who was
guilty the murderer knew and the
Searchc,r of all hearts knew. and by none
but Him would it probably ever be
| known"
His Honor then directed the Clerk to
record the Courts verdict which was
done, and Holland was freed from Gus
toby. The case of State W. William
HoppS, Hollands alleged accomplish
was submitted on Thursday on the evil
dcnce adduccd against the latter, and
| like verdict was entered, his Honor
Judge Brown. who was alone upon the
bcnch saying it was necessary to say
that against Hops there WIS even less
testimony than had been offered against
| Holland. ITopr< was then also dis
| charged.