Year: 1859

CRIMINAL CoURT.-Hon. Henry Stump, JUDGE.
Milton Whitney, Esq, States Attorney, prosecu-
ting The Court was engaged in the following bust
ness yesterday:


In the case ofFrancis Collins charged with an as
sault with intent to kill application was made for
bail by W. G. n. Carr, Esq., acting for C. J. NJ.
Gwinn, Esq. The Court fixed the bail at 81 0OO
which was given by Henry Collins the traverser's
father.


Mr.. Whitney here called the attention of the
Court to the case of one Patrick Kelly, who had
been arrested by constable in the city, on the
charge of selling one razor without license. Kelly
had now been in Jail six weeks. The prisoners wife
is here and says it is of great hardship. her
husband was out of employment and had no means
OF supporting his family; when some parties gave
him these and told him to 60 and do the best
he could with them. His wife asserts, said Mr.
Whitney, that she has two children, and that she
is very destitute. Under these circumstances Mr.
Whitney suggested to the Court to dismiss the case


The Court asked if the man made it business to
go around peddling without license


The wife said no; it was case of necessity and
her husband was endeavoring to get bread for his
family.


The Court asked who the magistrate was who
had sent the man to jail The Court thought it
was small business


Mr. Whitney replied it was Justice Spies
The Court dismissed the at the suggestion of
the States Attorney, who ordered release of the
prisoner.


The case of the State rs Thomas Reardon, in
dicted for obtaining money under false pretences
(Which was continued from Thursday, was
| taken up.


DR.. Thomas Busk was sworn for the defence
lie testified that Reardon came to his office on the
Sunday when the prisoner arrested in the
morning, and showed him the bank note; witness
looked at it and seeing pin holes through it. con-
cluded it was a good note; witness would
change the note and offered to do so,
but found afterwards that he had only two
or three dollars about the office; he told
the traverser that it was good note and would
have changed it if he had the money about him;
he did not know the Susquehanna Bank and Bridge
Company had failed he was not much of a Judge of
| note himself then.


Mr. Whitney.-"Doetor, would you take it for
ten dollars?"


Witness.-Can say that would"
The Court thought that the testimony of Dr.
Busk W as important; it created a doubt in the
| mind of the Court to whether Reardon knew
that the note was valueless. The Court was of
opinion before hearing this testimony that the tra-
verser intended to defraud the woman; this testi-
mony will acquit him, because creating doubt in
the Courts mind the benefit of the doubt must go
to the prisoner. The Court will therefore acquit
him. Where is the man?
Mr.. Cowan.-''He is standing here. SIR
COurt.-'The Court acquits him of the charge,
but you must be more careful in the future. The
Doctors testimony saves you from the penitenti-
ary. Where did you get the note? %
Prisoner-'I got it from man for cutting out
some pantalOOns."


Court-"Well I'll discharge you. Look out bet
ter next time"


The case of Patrick Cosgrove, indicted for two
assaults and for riot was called None of the
States witnesses appearing the stetted.
The case of the State Us. Beale Barton, indicted
jointly with Edward Miller for the murder of Thos.
Leyburn on the 5th January, 1859, which was
fixed for trial to-day, called.


o. F. Hack and Sheppard Leakin, Esqs, are
counsel for the defence.


The trials had been severed on motion of the de-
fence.


M wb;+,o,, s+oto5 30 tbo Co,ut A.. nv r,
Rogers, Esq, had been employed assistant pros
ecutor for the State.


Mr.. Hack here arose and said that the prisoners
counsel intended to try the case jointly to the
travesers, and wished to try them before t c
Court, not wanting jury trial. He said the pris-
oners had right to ask this. and cited the Acts
of Assembly of 1909 and 1852 in support of his
suggestion


The Court remarked that there was never any
doubt in its mind about its power to try such cases
The Acts authorized it, that the Court well knew
but it was not compulsory on the Court to do so it
was left in the direction of the Court. The Court
would much prefer that the should be tried be-
fore the jury.


Mr.. Hack then stated that the defence would take
jury trial.


Mr.. Rogers here arose and stated that the State
was not willing to accede to the proposition of the
defence to try the jointly today it was only
yesterday afternoon that he had been employed in
the case, and knowing that the of Barton was
fxed for to-day he was prepared to go on with it,





it to be postponed but to Milers case, there was
evidence to be brought forward by the State which
could not be produced now, which would render
it incumbent to oppose the motion on the part of
the defence to unite the trials.


Mr.. Leakin replied to the remarks of Mr.. Rogers,
and contended that they presented nothing to the
Court which would affect the motion of the counsel
for the defence.


prepared himself to try the upon the evidence
OF the witnesses, the names of whom had been
furnished by the Grand Jury, and which appeared
upon the back of the Indictment. 1t was inmate
rial to him whether the indictment was severed or
the case tried jointly. He would say that the
friends of the deceased had not come to him and
furnished the names of any one who could throw
more light on the matter, but this morning Mr..
Rogers had visited him, and made known the facts
which he (Rogers) had just stated. He said he
was anxious to try the case without severing the
indictment, to save the time of the Court.
The Court remarked that the trial was severed
upon the motion of the counsel for the Defence and
that the Court had acquiesced in the motion the
day for trial of one Ofthe parties fixed for to-day
and the State was ready. The defence now propose
to unite the trials, and the State by the assistant
prosecutor, say they are not ready in the case of
Miller, whose trial was not set down. The Court
thinks the State was taken by surprise in such a
proceeding, and is inclined to grant the PRAYER of
the State not to unite the trials. If the State has
an opportunity to procure evidence in the case
whichis not set for trial day. and can procure that
testimony, the Court will grant their PRAYER: the
Court will give the State time to procure the evil
dence. The Court will say that if the counsel for
the defence will agree to try the cases jointly it will
postpone the trial until next week, and fix dav to
try it jointly, so that the State will be prepared in
both cases. If the defence do not agree that the
Court will proceed to try Barton now.


Mr. Hack said the defence was willing to postpone
the to future day, and when it was called
the defence would be in Court and would then elect
whether to try the parties separately united.
The Court would not assent to any thing of the
kind, they must try the jointly at future day
or the Court would try Barton now.
| Mr.. Leakin remarked the defence only want to
have the right to join the trials when the
case comes up. There may be something brought
out unknown to us which may force US to sever,
something we are not aware of, otherwise we will
try them together.


After considerable discussion between the coun-
sci Messrs. Hack, ,Leakn and Rogers about the post
ponement, during which the Court was very en-
phatic in telling the two former, that they were re-
citing their propositions half dozen times over
and that the Court perfectly understood them, the
case was set down for trial on Monday next; the
case of Erasmus Levy being postponed until Tues