Court Opinion

ID: 8639543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:50:54.269324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:03.253316
License: Public Domain

TALDMADGE, District Judge,
proceeded to charge the jury. The points of law that arose in the progress of this trial, being precisely the same as those raised and determined on the trial of Col. Smith (Case No. 16,342a), the judge’s charge was the same in substance, as reported in that trial; and after a careful collation of the testimony, which his honour told the jury was, in his mind, clear and decisive against Mr. Ogden, as having provided and prepared the means within the United States of a military expedition, to be carried on from thence against the dominions of some foreign power, he closed his charge by observ’ng, that the defendant’s agency in preparing the means, the nature of the expedition, and its destiny, were facts of which the jury. were the proper and only judges. That whether the United States, at the time the offence is charged, were at peace or in war, is matter of law, and as such ought to be decided by the court. The jury might conscientiously rely upon its correctness, and were under no necessity to assume a responsibility beyond a determination of matters properly within their decision.
The jury retired, and, after a short absence, returned a verdict of not guilty.