flected upon the subject since his former evidence, and he gives you the reasons which have induced him to form the opinion which he has expressed. But the Counsel for the prisoner contend that all these witnesses who are called to prove that he was in Brown Street, must be mistaken, because (as they say), the prisoner, was in another place, and they refer you to the testimony of four young gentlemen, viz. :-Messrs. Balch, Burchmore, Forrester, and Page, as well as to Mr. Knapp, sen., and Samuel and Phippen Knapp, to prove the alibi. [States their evidence.] The time embraced by the four witnesses is from about seven until near ten, and by the three last, from at five minutes after ten, until he went to bed; and if they are not mistaken in the night, and the father and his sons who have testified are not mistaken in regard to the facts of which they speak, the alibi would seem to be proved. The burthen of proof is upon the party who would establish the alibi. You must determine whether it was on the evening of the murder that these young men were with the prisoner or on some other evening near that time. There is one fact mentioned by Balch, upon which the Government much rely, to show that it was not on the 6th, which was the night of the murder, but on the 3d, the Saturday night before. He stated, that the prisoner told them that he was going to ride out of town on horseback, and was going to Osborn's to get his horse. And when he came back he said he had been out of town, and that it was "about a twenty minutes ride." There is a charge for a ride on horseback on the 3d but none on the 6th. I would refer you to the testimony of the young men, and particularly to their crossexamination, and have the whole to be weighed by you. In regard to the testimony of the father can you doubt that he is mistaken? I refer you to the testimony of Mr. Shepard, and of Mr. Treadwell upon this point. He stated to them that he did not know at what hour Frank came home on that night. He spoke to Mr. Shepard, not of his own knowledge but of what "Phippen had told him.” Does he know more about it, than he did when he had the conversation with those gentlemen? You must consider the testimony of Samuel Knapp in connection with the contradictory evidence given by Mr. Webb; and the testimony of Phippen Knapp in connection with the contradictory evidence in the case, to which I will now more particularly refer you If you believe Mr. Colman, there is evidence from the prisoner himself, that he was not at home at the time of the murder, but went home afterwards. That he knew who was the perpetrator — the weapons which he used the particular place of concealment of one and destruction of the other, and the time when the deed was done.Did the prisoner bear a part in it? Could he know these circumstances without having his knowledge from the perpetrator? Did they come into town upon that evening each to perform the part which had been assigned to him? From whom could the prisoner have been informed before he went home on the night of the murder, that it had been committed? The Jury will compare the evidence arising from the confessions of the prisoner (if they are admitted under the rule before stated) with the other testimony in the case, and determine whether he was in Brown Street as the Government contend that he was - and if so, with what intent he was there? It has been contended on the part of the prisoner, that if he were there, he was not in a situation in which he could render any aid or assistance to the perpetrator at the time of the murder. This is a matter of fact for the Jury. It is proved that the part of the house occupied by the deceased as his sleeping chamber could be distinctly seen from Brown Street, and the distance of Brown Street from the house of the deceased, and the means of communication with it by the streets or otherwise, have been stated by the witnesses. The Jury must judge upon the evidence if the prisoner was there performing his part according to an agreement with the perpetrator, ready to afford him assistance if necessary watching giving notice in any way of the approach of danger, or assisting in the escape, or rendering any aid or assistance which would strengthen the arm and heart of the perpetrator. . . by You must decide upon the evidence as you have heard it within these walls you will shut out from your minds everything you may have heretofore read or heard upon this subject recollecting that all reasonable doubts upon any matter incumbent upon the government to prove, are to weigh in favor of the prisoner - with these remarks I leave the prisoner with his Country and his God. The cause was committed to the Jury at 1 o'clock, P.M., on Friday, August 20, and at 6 o'clock they returned a verdict of GUILTY. APPENDIX LIST OF TRIALS USEFUL FOR STUDY The following select list of trials is meant to include a few which are specially profitable because (a) they are fully reported, with counsel's arguments; (b) they have a stirring plot, and, being more or less open to debate as to the verdict, their interest is a sustained one; (c) they were tried by eminent counsel and thus afford good models; (d) they are accessible in the book market of to-day; and (e) they are among the most famous of their time in legal annals. American cases fulfilling all these requirements are rare, except in Massachusetts. England, Ireland, and Scotland. R. v. ANNESLEY, 17 Howell's St. Tr. 1093 (murder); CRAIG d. ANNESLEY v. ANGLESEA, 17 Howell's St. Tr. 1139 (ejectment, involving kidnapping and disputed identity); R. v. HEATH, 18 Howell's St. Tr. 1 (perjury); R. v. ANGLESEA, 18 Howell's St. Tr. 197 (assault). These four, in the years 17421743, belong together; read first page 1443, Vol. 17; then in the above order. One of the strangest romances in history, and a great mystery is left unsolved; read the following critical discussions: John Paget, "Judicial Puzzles" (1876; reprinted from Blackwood's Magazine, 1860); Andrew Lang, preface to "The Annesley Case" (Notable English Trials Series, 1912; this preface contains a full account of the sources and discussions, but this edition of the trial itself is unfortunately unsuited for study because it omits most of Mrs. Heath's Trial, supra, without which the testimony cannot be weighed). R. v. SQUIRES & WELLS, 19 Howell's St. Tr. 262 (larceny; really kidnapping); R. v. ELIZABETH CANNING, 19 Howell's St. Tr. 283 (perjury). These two, from the year 1754, belong together and form the most singular problem of evidence in the records of the 1700s; read the following critical discussions: Courtney Kenny, in the Law Quarterly Review, 1887, Vol. XIII, p. 368; John Paget, "Judicial Puzzles" (1876; reprinted from Blackwood's Magazine, 1860), p. 90; N. W. Sibley, "Criminal Appeal and Evidence" (1908), p. 162. SPENCER COWPER'S TRIAL, 13 Howell's St. Tr. 1105 (1699; murder of a spinster; the accused was a well-known lawyer, later a judge, related to the poet); read the following critical discussions: John Paget, "Judicial Puzzles" (1876; reprinted from Blackwood's Magazine, 1860), p. 109; preface to Cowper's Trial (in the Notable English Trials Series, 1912). THE STAUNTONS' TRIAL (Notable English Trials Series, 1911),1 ed. J. B. 1 This series, critically edited in the best style, is published by Wm. Hodge & Sons, of Edinburgh, and sponsored in the United States by the Cromarty Law Book Co., of Philadelphia. It is to be continued in other volumes, and its service will be even greater than that of the Notable Scottish Trials Series. Atlay (1876; murder by starvation; one of the strangest stories in criminal annals, and a trial conducted by the most eminent practitioners of the modern English bar; Montagu Williams led the defense). WILLIAM PALMER'S TRIAL (Notable English Trials Series, 1912), ed. Geo. H. Knott (1856; murder by poisoning; the most famous one of its kind in England in the 1800s; Sir J. Stephen calls it, "as a whole, one of the greatest trials in the history of English law;" the expert testimony is its special feature). MRS. MAYBRICK'S TRIAL (Notable English Trials Series, 1912), ed. H. B. Irving (1881; husband-murder by poisoning; the accused was an American; her counsel was Sir Charles Russell; the trial judge was Sir J. F. Stephen; this case aroused international interest, and competes with Palmer's for the description of the most famous poisoning case of the century). CHANTRELLE'S TRIAL (Notable Scottish Trials Series, 1906),' ed. A. Duncan Smith (1878; wife-murder by poisoning; the most notable modern case of its kind in Scotland). OSCAR SLATER'S TRIAL (Notable Scottish Trials Series, 1910), ed. Wm. Roughead (1908; murder for money; a most astonishing verdict of Guilty, which enlisted the interest of Sir A. Conan Doyle, in 1912, to secure the release of the convicted man). MRS. M'LACHLAN'S TRIAL (Notable Scottish Trials Series, 1911), ed. Wm. Roughead (1862; murder for money; known as the Sandyford Mystery; it gave rise to popular factions, and agitated a generation). FRANZ MULLER'S TRIAL (Notable English Trials Series, 1911), ed. H. B, Irving (1864; murder in a railway compartment; the first railway murder, which revealed the dangers of the European compartment system; famous for the accused's detection through exchanging hats with the victim; one of Serjeant Ballantine's prosecutions, exhibiting his methods of examination.) MADELEINE SMITH'S TRIAL (Notable Scottish Trials Series, 1905), ed. A. Duncan Smith (1857; murder of a lover by arsenic-poisoning; one of the permanent mysteries of criminal annals). WM. LAMSON'S TRIAL (Notable English Trials Series, 1911), ed. H. L. Adam (1882; murder by poisoning, by a doctor; an instructive poisoning trial). MONSON'S TRIAL (Notable Scottish Trials Series, 1908), ed. John W. More (1893; murder for insurance money; the accused a tutor, the deceased a rich pupil; on a shooting excursion, the latter is killed; known as the Ardlamont Mystery, and enshrined in wax by Mme. Tussaud). United States. JOHN W. WEBSTER'S TRIAL (Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1850), ed. Geo. Bemis (1850; murder of Dr. Parkman, by Professor Webster, of the Harvard University Medical School; the most notable American trial of the 1800s). EMIL LOWENSTEIN'S TRIAL (Wm. Gould & Son, Albany, 1874), ed. Gould (1873; murder for money; one of New York's best-known cases; tried by Nathaniel C. Moak and D. C. Herrick as counsel). This series, also published by Wm. Hodge & Sons, Glasgow and Edinburgh, is an enterprise of great value, filling a long-felt want for the student of trials. JAMES M. LOWELL'S TRIAL (Dresser, McLellan & Co., Portland, Me., 1875), ed. H. M. Plaisted (1875; wife-murder; known as the Mystery of the Headless Skeleton; tried by eminent counsel of the Maine bar). THOS. W. PIPER'S TRIAL (State Printers, Boston, 1887), ed. the Attorneygeneral (1875; murder of a little girl by a sexton in the church belfry; the jury disagreed on the first trial; eminent counsel were on both sides). JOHN C. BEST'S TRIAL (State Printers, Boston, 1903), ed. the Attorneygeneral (1901; murder by shooting; a good example of a trial for assassination motived by hostility). MUDGETT'S (alias HOLMES) TRIAL (Geo. T. Bisel, Philadelphia, 1897), ed. Bisel (1895; murder; the accused, whose character and history are set forth in No. 98, ante, was one of the monsters, occasionally arising, who murder wholesale; his killings ranged between Chicago, Indianapolis, Toronto, Detroit, and Philadelphia). HERSEY'S TRIAL (A. Williams & Co., Boston), ed. J. W. Yerrinton (1860; murder of the victim of seduction; one of the leading American poisoning cases, well argued). TREFETHEN'S TRIAL (State Printers, Boston, 1895), ed. Albert E. Pillsbury (1892; murder of the victim of a seduction; one of the best-known and besttried Massachusetts cases, with distinguished counsel). SARAH J. ROBINSON'S TRIAL (State Printers, Boston, 1888), ed. the Attorney-general (1886; murder of a whole family by poisoning; the bestknown modern American poisoning case). JOHN O'NEIL'S TRIAL (State Printers, Boston, 1901), ed. the Attorneygeneral (1897; rural murder and rape; a good example of circumstantial evidence). DURRANT'S TRIAL, ed. Peixotto (San Francisco, 1895; murder in a church belfry; a remarkable instance of a guilty man successfully passing the ordeal of cross-examination; published under the title "The Crime of the Century"). |