Year: 1860

ment to consult with the Court and States AttOr-


ney as to the day-which he desired should be an


early one-when the trial of the indictments would


be had. 1t was remarked that there was only one


indictment in which it necessary that bail


should be given, that one charging embezzement.--


Judge Bond said he wished to make few remarks


to the States Attorney at this stage of the CASE


The Court would suggest to the States Attorney


the evident propriety of removing these cases for


trial in another Court. The party indicted is an


officer of this tribunal, and such has necessarily


had such relations with all the other officers and


members of this Court require that all possibility


even of any operation of these, in any way tram


meiing the complete, legal, just and impartial ex-


animation of these cases, should be precuded. So


that, not only shall the verdict be one proper in


law and fact, but unimpeachable in public opinion


also, and such as must secure the acquiescence of


those on either side who sure to be dissatisfied.


These cases belong especially to that class,


to secure justice in which, the power of


removal was given and the propriety of such re-


moval seems to the Court to be such, that it has


deemed it due to the States Attorney, as well as


itself, to suggest such cOurse-Mr. Pitts said


that unless the suggestion was made by the Con-


stitutional mode, by the States ATTORNEY upon his


own responsibility, the defence did not desire to


have the cases removed. They believed they could


have fair and impartial trial in this Court. They


did not wish their client driven to foreign tri


buna to vindcate his character, among strangers,


from the fear that hereafter it might be
fair and Impartial trial in this Court. They
u, III
suggestion was made on the responsibility of the
States officer, would not object to a removal or
continuance, Mr.. Pitts, Mr.. Whitney speaking to
him. they would consent to be tried here before
iury.--The Court said it had made the sugges-
tion at this time, because if the were removed
to another Court it would not be necessary to give
bail for Mr.. Whitney's appearance at this Court
Mr.. May said that as the representative of the


Criminal Justice Of the State in this case, he


free to acknowledge the necessity of an impartial


tribunal to administer the laws but this was the
first moment he had received any intimation of the
intention of the Court to offer the suggestion
which it had just made. lie had intended to join
in traverse with the defence and try the cases in
this Court. He was not now prepared to reply to
the suggestion the Court, but would consider it
with all the respect properly due to it. The law
required that suggestion for the removal of any
cause should be made upon the ground that the
traverser could not have fair and impartial trial.
suggestion of this kind was attended with con-
siderable responsibility, and the law re-
quired affidavit to be made, when
a removal was to be made by any other than the
States Attorney. In his case the affidavit was
dispensed with, on just consideration of the res
possibility and veracity of the States ofcer-the
suggestion on his part was equivalent to affida-
Wit. He (Mr. May1 was not now prepared to make
such an allidavit-he was not prepared to say that
the traVerser could not get an impartial trial in
this Court-his impressions to the contrary.
He would therefore ask the indulgence of the
Court to allow the case to go over until Monday,





slider the suggestion of the Court, and
conclude By that time whether the cases
should be removed. He thought, however,
that he could not take upon himself the response
biity Of their removal. There other consider
aions connected with this matter, which he was
not unmiudiul of. The responsibility which he had
already assumed, in accepting the Office of States
Attorney to prosecute the cases. was one of an I'M
pleasant character-a position no one would seek,
and one, certainly J, no member of the profession,
having an honesty and uprightness Of purpose,
would decline. sense of public justice and pro-
fessonal honor did not permit him to decline the
trust imposed upon him, and he intended
to perform its duties faithfully. The re-
mOVal of these cases would place him in an en-
barrassing position. The law made it the duty of
the States Attorney Of the county to which any
case was removed, to take charge Of such and
to prosecute them. If these cases were removed
and he was to follow them he would then be placed
in the attitude of volunteer, position which he
did not wish to occupy.--Judge Bond said that |
he did not think any one would for a moment sup
pose, from the past course of this Court that he
devolve upon it, If the cases were tried |
here he was prepared to give an impartial |
trial, and if necessary a severe judg-
ment. If case should even arise before him |
when he felt an inability to meet the responsibility
OF it., he would resign his positon.-Mr. MAY |
said he was very far from intmating ANYTHING of |
the The Court said it did not of course
understand Mr.. May as so intimating. The Court |



the propriety of removal to another Court, whose
decision would be satisfactory in the opinion of
every fair minded man in the community. If the
eases should be removed, it is true that the States
he Court could give the assurance that
wherever the cases should go, the Gov
,rnor would appoint Mr.; May to prosecute
hem there could be no doubt about that.-Mr.
May replied, that if the cases were removed the
necessity which called him to their prosecution
would no longer exist. 1t was for the reason that
the State had no representative in this Court that
he accepted the position, and whilst holding it, he
was unwilling to divest himself of any of its re-
possibilities of all things, he did not wish to
be looked upon as volunteer He again asked the |
Court to indulge him until Monday, to decide upon
the question of emoval.-The subject was then |
until this morniug.-The Court then |
fixed the bail in the case of embezzement at |
five thousand dollars, and Joseph Whitney, |
Esq, entered as bondsman-Mr May then said |
that there was another matter to which he desired
to call the attention of counsel on the other side
There were some papers laid before the House of |
Delegates which were necessary in the trial of |
these cases, but which Mr.. King the keeper of the
records had been, up to the present time unable to
find. He desired to know if the counsel would OBJ
lect to the production Of copies of the papers, |
as they appeared upon the records of the |
House, and submit them upon the same !
grounds as the original papers Mr.. Pitts |
said they would make no objections, provided
the same privileges were extended to the de- |
fence. Mr.. May said they must designate what |
papers they Intended to submit. After !
some conversation, it was agreed, that coun- j
sci state IN writing this morning, what pa
pers they intend to present in the trial
State as. Dudley Nichols, George K. Price and o. |
Kirkland, charged with assaulting and beating |
Leterman Levy. This is the cowhiding case |
which occurred last Wednesday morning on East |
Baltimore street. The main facts of the assault |
have been heretofore published. Nj. Lew5 sta
ted that the three accused, entered his store on |
W ednesday morning, when Nichols beckoned him |
pl ho fol tho, II. H.
door, when Nichols commenced to beat him with a |
raw hide stick, or rattan over the head and back,
without saying word to him; after receiving |
eighteen or twenty blows, one of the men Kirk |
land) said CHATS enough, let's go;" they went off
ard he then got his hat, followed them and had them
arrested; Nichols never spoke to him or said |
anything about an insult to his wife; when Nichols
was whipping him, the other two stood in such |
positions as to prevent him escaping into the street
Mr.. Levy said, on cross examination, that no lady
was ever insued in his store in his presence; he
had never said that his brother had insulted the |
lady and that he was standing by; never said to
Mr. Pointer that if Mrs. Nichols had been a decent
woman she would not have been nsulted.-~Other |
who saw the assault, cnrrohorated |
the testimony of Mr.. Levy as TO the whipping
cowhide was the instrument used by |
HlehoIs.~ AFTER ~, the State had concluded,
John il. Thomas, Esq, proposed to put upon the |
stand, George IL. Price, one of the accused, against
whom no evidence had been otfered-to show that
the companions of Nichols accompanied him, hav- |
NO hnOWleGGe OF tDe lnteDGeQ assault and hav-
ing no completely with Nichos.-Mr Gimor, !
prosecuting. objected, and the Court sustained the
obection.-Mr Thomas then submitted paper
from physician, to the effect that Mrs. Nichols
was too unwell to appear in Court.-John Pom
tier Deputy Sheriff, called by the defence, when
he stated that the day of the assault having some
business with Squire Hiss, he weat to the Central
station house; the Squire not there at the time,
and seeing Mr. Levy, with whom he had also
business. he asked him to step out to with
him; Levy refused to go out, and said he (Pontier)
must talk these he told him (P. J that he had
been cowhided and as he learned for insulting
woman; upon asking him if he had done so he re-
piled that if he had insulted her, he had grounds
Tor insulting her he also said that if he had known
they were going to cowhide him so he would
rather have paid five hundred dollars than been
disgraced in that way.-All the evidence having
been heard, Mr.. Gilmor addressed the Court stig-
matizing the assault as one without provocation,
and calling for the severest punishment. There
had been no evidence produced here TO show that
Mr.. Levy had been guilty of the charge for
which this assault was said to have been justified,
and which had been put before the public, we'll
calculated to destroy his character, an upright
citizen of the community. Ii the defence had at
tempted to prove that he had been guilty of such
offence, by the absent witness, he was prepared
to meet it and disprove it.-Mr Thomas
said, regarded the alleged insult, the
lady not there to testify, but could be produced
if the case was continued; to the completely of
Price and Kirkland there was nothing to show that
they knew anything about the contemplated assault
The Court said that if Levy had insuted the la
dy, it would have been matter for the Court ITSELF
and the Court would not Justify it. The facts stand
before the Court, that the assault was committed
without any justification, and that it was
a most outrageous AS far the