Year: 1872

cs character .'a as to carry with any great amount
the alIegeI meeting with Mr.. Given ON the
corner OF Tenth aud OrenRe was completely
lmPeacned BY the Testimony Of VIM. Eilings-
worth and Given's son. The testimony proves
tnat Given was not there at that tr,e to he
dence OF Black, the directory shows him to
have lived at 5l3 Orange street which is con-
nImed Dy WIN. Brown, but not in his first |
statement Of residences did he SO state.


In regard 10 VIM: Myers, 1t Is cOncl-siveIy |
proved ny Henry Wilson that Given asked him
that he went up the steps, where he asked for
him; was told ne did not live there proved by |
the testimony Of Mr.. Traynor that Myers |
came TO Fifth street Office, but it .was after |
1iven had moved from there, and this i'm
Peacnes Myers testimony as to dates, as well
had not the least shadow Of e doubt they
were mistaken. As to I.ockman and Howard
nothing OF demand for tax was ever proved,
and nothing with reference to those two were
charged IN the Indictment, but as TO the pro-
curing OF their names by false returns 70 be
stricken from the assessment list The ques-
ton Of dOmiclIe IL one of the most difficult
questions OF law and fact ever presented to a


jury, and it Is precisely that question that Is
involved here. Now we think we have proved
concluslvely. that this defendant. to enable


linn to get the taxes Of these men used every
means; he advertised, and sat in pursuance
of such advertisements he sent bills out and
took them himself he went to the houses of
those lie could find, and what did they tell
him when he asked for them? They told


him they did not live there. Now, could he
do more: Was not that proof that there was
no intent which is alleged, and which must
be proved, to deprive these men of opportu.
mites to qualify themselves by reason Of their
race or color? think you will conclude with


me that it Is more to the offence of procuring to


be stricken of the lists by means of falls, re-
turns. do not approve of such scenes as


were enacted at New Castle by any one, nor


will attempt to justify Mr.. Gvens conduct
in the character Of prOpriety as to the remarks
said to be made by him, but think that the
whole question as regards any crminalty on


the part of Mr. Given was disposed of by the


simple fact that at the time Mr.. Pickel1 and


DR.. Cameron and Edward Challenger AMI Mr..


Provost applied to Given for the error list,


the allowance OF this list had been made
by the Court, the custody of that book


as collector had ceased, and Mr.. Given


stood in the capacity of any other. having
q perfect right to look over it ii he wanted
to. But Given wanted to see it IN order to cor


rect himself with regard to error OF SIS charged
| to him by Levy Court, and he was afterwards so
| allowed on motion Of Mr. hallcross % appears


in the minutes OF Levy Court; rs to the Keeping


OF the book by other men. their testimony was


that they were occupied with it private citizens


and that they had us much light to the inspection


OF the book us any other citizen This SO called de-


privation OF Mr.. Given il so would not le PEN


ul MIR. Bayard called the attention OF the Jury to


the fact that the intent be proved and proved
beyond doubt as to these five men named in tho


indictment and no others he concluded by asking
the jury TO start out with that principle in law
| toat man is always innocent until he is proved


guilty. TO sift the evidence carefully aud to be


careful to allow to the prisoner the benefit OF


reasonable doubt, and to bring in verdict accord
ing to the light which earnest and painful search
| would give to the case. Feeling that upon doing
TINS the case AS stated and proved by defence


would bs sustained, he asked for verdict for the


defendant.


Court took recess for 80 minutes, and reas-


sembled at o'clock


Mr.. Spruance closed the case for the prosecution
as follows substantially:


lie opened by entering at once into an examna.
tion OF the general conduct of Given in his deal.


ings with tho men named in the indictment lie


substantially argued that none OF the facts proved
by the prosecution had been disproved by the ar.


guments OF the testimony for the defence. II.
then went into critical examination OF the tcst
} mony offered by the prosecution and that offered


BY the defence. he sisted that the fact that Ar
chibald Given was not visited by tax payers in or
der to pay would not excuse him il hs did not us.
due diligence and all diligence to find him. HI
charged that 1t had not been proved that he die


not do some OF the counts of the Indictment
"
Gven's error list by marking off the "cant find


and placing "leit the State" was in itself an &C
showing guilty intent, because he has not showl
the court why he did 80, and the proof indicated
, that he did not use diligence in finding out whetn


or they had left the State not, and that he dil
5 not know OF good and substantial knowledge tha
they had left the State. and he also held that th
/ act coupled with other proved acts and remark
proved that It was 80 done because of their rae
and color. He reconc,led the apparent discrep


int unAA 49,
Filings xorths testimony has no bea, ing ut all OF
2 that time OF which Black speaks as it was not a
a Ellingsworths house that Black saw Given, bu
\ at the corner house.


e Mr.. Spruance after thus showing guilty iAten
a ami its result proceeded to survey the conduct
+ Mr.. Given at New Castle and considered it u
4 showing light on the former conduct Of Mr. Civ
! en-; he had committed guilty act and no now set
y to work to cover it. lie and his coneierates tax
charge Of that error list; they hold it; and whe
gentlemen wish to get hold Of it they are met by
:, refusal; sometimes by Given, sometimes by his a
= lies. Given frequently gave the men whoapplie
y for this book ana was refused, the telling remarl
Y IL am bossing thhjob." What does he mean b
u that remark2 w claim that it Is q clean pros
. when united with previous remarks to negroe
and the condition OF the lists altered al
7. written over, that when all these facts put t.
y gether they amount to positive proof OF the gull
= OF this man. Why did he not let Mr.. Pickles an
Mr.. Challenger and Mr. Provost or any other WI
applied to him SEQ that error listH Because
II would find him out in his guilt and these name


would be seen aud these parties knowing ths
"le!t the State" wes q lie rs regarded these me
Q named in the indictment, and others: aud ths
i they would be called to the notice Of the Lev
&C urt, who would place their names on tho asses
: msnt list and they would receive that right I
o which they were entitled by the law Of the lant
II We believe We have made out to you clear cas-
IS Of guilt to the general Indictment and W. woui
x ask you when ysu go to your room to confer as
q the verdict as true men.