The New York Herald Newspaper, June 14, 1842, Page 1

Vel. VILI.—Ne. 163.—=Whele No. 3014. NEW YORK, TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 14, 1842. ss Pea ws el a ee a ¥ wre Be AOU Na RS Nek ARMOR IE Gy 8 w-neteh we EINE Ks ry ae Court of Oyer and Terminer. it to beso. ‘There are three counts in this indict- ; son, whoever he was, di of transactions, | ever, whe spell incorrectly have no standard tof Was this the speculation which he entered into at | circumstance which I must poi eu to you Before Judge Kent ae Aldermen Balis pal Hat- | ment. The first charges the forgi P vetoes tien ent, | both at the north and south. He addresses Maun both refer. They have nothing which th Baltinore with Charles F, Johuson, and was hea | is in relation to. the gi! Phill All ‘the field. the letter of the 10th of 4 » 1841 to. Maunsell, | sell, White & Co., in language which completely | take asa guide to assist them,or by which they spell, | veritable partner, or an accomplice, who has in | counsel haye united im saying that there is r White & Co. to have been 2 in the city of New | deceives them, and leads them to suppose him a per- | and consequently their manner of spelling, is vague, | order to aid him and to support him by his evidence | nothing against her or her character, I know no- Stxra Day. : «__ | Orleans—the second count chai the locate to | son well acquainted with planting—speaks of his | and mere personal peculiarity, without any standard | gone to Cuba to give this evidence. But 1 think, | thing about her ; but at all events her testineny fe fe —— a pagent made thie manning have been dove in the city of New York, yee i presence in Virginia, cails their attention to Mr. | whatever, and peculiarto the one individual. When, | gentlemen, the whole tr ction bears intrinsic as | stands unimpeached, and that evidence must be held for the admission e Teporters an i i " ; i The third count charges the uttering of this iustru- ment; knowing it to be forged, to have been done in the city of New York. Now there is a bare possibility that it. may have been forged in the city of New Orleans, but no evi- dence on that point has been laid before you, and therefore you may dismiss the consideration of the first count entirely trom your minds. The points then which you must consider are the forging of the instrument in the city of New York, and the utter- ing of it when forged in the city of New York. If there is evidence ‘of the prisoner being guilty on either of these counts you will find according- ly. The great stress is laid on the utterance of this instrument. Now a very few words will suffice as to the taw of this case; for as to that there can be little difference of.opinion. In the year 1830 aprinciple of law, until that time novel in our juris- prudence, that, namely, of dividing crimes into de reea, was introduced; forgery, which received the especial attention of the revisers, was divided into several “‘degrees,” tofeach of whichwas affixed a dif- ferent degree } punishment. To the firet degree was awa: 8 period of not less than ten years imprisonment in the State Prison—to the second, a period of not less than five years, and to the third, a period not exceeding five years. It is under the third degree that the present indictment is brought. New, of course, without distracting your attention b' any referencefto the two first degrees of forgery,I will read from the statute book the provision respecting the third, It is as follows:—“ Any person who, with intent to injure or defraud, shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit any instrument of writing being, or purporting to be, the act of another, by which any pecuniary demand or obligation shall be, Gray, of Virginta—doubtless well-known in New Orleans; speaks of the implements he intends to get; showing that he is well acquainted with Lou- isiana, Arkanses, and with all the business of cotton planting. tainted, in short, with the circum. stances, mode, and manner of a planting life, and all the peculiarities of the southern section of our country. Turning to Brown Brothers & Co., we find this same Lager exhibiting a rémarkable ac- quaintance with mercantile transactions at the north. He writes to Brown Brothers and Co. asa New Orleans merchant would write to a New York merchant. He mentions the number of bales of cotton, the number of pounds (465,060) no doubt that corresponds with the average weight of cotton bales. The quality is spoken of in technical terms. The mest of bills of exchange to be drawn onMaun- sell, White & Co., in case Browr Brothers & Co. should incline to give this man the accommodation he asked, is given in the usual technical terms. press on your meiory the mind which animated this plet. ‘The letter is successful. Brown, Broth- ers & Co., whose transactions are over the world, are equally deceived with Maunsell, White & Co., and a letter is received from their conndential clerk accepting the proposal of Maunsell, White & Co. Then we will find Caldwell writing them the letter which was the immediate introduction to the fraud. He sends them on two bills of $13000 each, and re~ quests them to be discounted, and the funds remitted to him, and sending them an order on the cotton, which he says if they wish could be transtitted to their correspondent in Liverpool, showing here an acquaintance with the agents of the house abroad, The funds were then transmitted, and this man, whoever he is, receives them, and pockets the pro- ceeds. Still the plot is not complete, and to other portions of it your attention must be directed, as inting out the individual who consummated the Fraud. He has received the money, and now his personal qualities are called into _ requisi- tion. He has got the ss: ue og of checks ayable anks to the order of John P Caldwell, and he has got to encounter the Argus eyes of bankers, whose attention is of course espe- cially directed to persons drawing large sums of money. But all these difficulties this person sur- mounted by a dexterity and address equal to that ingenuity and skill by which the first part of the plot was concocted. A strangerfpresents himself one morning at the bank in Baltimore ; he is chal- lenged, and is told that the checks which he offers cannot be paid; he presents himself at another bank, and the same objection is made; he will not be paid, because he is not known. These objec- tions he met with the ready address of the most consummate artist. He was not offended—he was not lond nor overbearing—he showed no uneasiness at objections with which all men of business are familiar ; he received the objections with strict pro- priety—expresses his regret that he is not known, and proposes to bring the best evidence. He goes to Mr. George Brown, and he satisfies the bankers. He talks to them about gold. as he easily leans over the counter; he carries it off throughout with an ele- gant nonchalance which entirely deceives them: he plays the same finished part with the banks in Vir- ginia; he receives the money,and the plotiscomplete. Now, who was the person’ who done all this? Cir- cumatances point toan individual, and certainly it would be surprising if one in whom all these met were not found guilty. The criminal in this case must have been well acquainted with the south and New York—he must have been a person of ready address—of striking personal appearance—of great presence of mind—and of most imperturbable com- emo And if you find all these things, then, at east, some advance is made in this investigation which we are endeavoring to conduct. Before.I leave this matter, I would remark however, that when I said this plot was completed when John P. Caldwell received this money, I was in error. A very material point yet remained to be done. He had got notes from the banks in Virginia and Balti- more—they might have what lawyers call a “ ear- mark.” Gold could not be identified—the notes might. This Caldwell, whoever he was, had taken large bills in. Virginia and also in. Balti- niore. hose biils, trem iar circum- stances, or circumstances applicable to all Ameri- can banking institutions, could not be negotiated business at the Court, were admirable. e room was as crowded as ever, but the arrangements being better than heretofore, there was much less confusion. the audience were a large num- oe af ee who ; or em out of curiosity tosee this u Bummel of a Forger. The Judge and Aldermen entered about a quarter after ten, but the Court was detained until eleven o’clock, awaiting the arrival of one of the Jurors, The Court having been opened and the Jurors hav- ing all answered to their names, Mr. Wurrinc re- sumed his address: By remarking that after a day of rest they were aapia called to the consideration of the evidence in this most important cause, to which nearly one week’s deliberation had been ven by them. bits oro (said he) I have during the past day endeavored to discharge the evidence en- bey 2 from my mind, and I approach this subject as free from deliberation as any of you, and as you were much fatigued as well as myself, I trust you will bear with me if I occupy more of your time. To retum to the consideration of this cause. You will remember that the learned counsel acknowledged thatif it was proved that Ed- wards was in Baltimore on the Sist August, and in Richmond on the 2nd September, then there was no doubt esto his guilt. And if it was not sustained that he was not in those places oreither of them at the time mentioned, then he must be found guilty of the charges against him. Mr. Whiting then commented on the statements which had been made that Monroe Edwards could not have him in those places, showing that he might have been there pa received possession of the letter from Alexandria by means of an agent. .They have stated that this is disproved, by what they say is the fact that he was not in Baltimore at all on that day, but was in New York at the Waverley House, ani for this they rely on the register of that house, and the letter dated on that ot Som that house to Charles F. Johnson. The whole course of testimon: shows that Johnson is a false, base, and perjure rson, and the letter bears internal evidence of its falsity upon its face. Mr. Warrinc then commented upon the apparent dis¢tepancy between the signa- ture on the registers, &c. ps the disagreement be- tween his usual method of writing his names in the registers, and that.im which it is written at the Northern Hotel, ingonjunction with that of Belcher, which is written in a different hand-writing- There is no evidence that he either supped, or stayed, or slept at the Northen Hotel. Where didhe sleep? Could he not lay his finger on. a single‘soul out of the 300,000 existing in this city? You have nothing presented here to you but the semblance of truth, which you are asked to receive as evidence, and allow it to weigh with ois We have been asked why we did not make Edwards a confederate instead of a principal ?. Why, we have shown you all the evidence we have, and do they Point out ony ee, person as havi! been the per- petrator of crimes? This isthe only person on whom we have found evidence, which shows he is the person whocommitted them. What man our testimony point the finger at other than Monroe Edwards? his possession is found an a- mount of money nearly corresponding to that stolen. He a amount of notes, and 2 similar amount of gold. Even if we could have - proved that another had received the letter at the fice, and fred handed that letter to Mon- toe Edwards, that would be no that he was an accessory, or that he had. any knowledge of the guilty uses to which that letter was to be put. He might have employed an innocent persen to have donee sat ee ned in omer person intending to poison 4 e pol- son to aboy who knew ing of its being poison, and by whom it was handed to another than the party for whom it was intended, and in that case it was a serious argument whether the party who had sent the poison was guilty of ibvurder, xs another raon had been killed than ,the one intended. r. Ellis sees that itis not the handwriting of Ed- wards in the book at the wareety, ee i But wl = man—for he was careful eno: to pay 5 this Belcher is the same man thee Mise Phillips or purpayt to be, created, increased, discharged, or negotiated, or by which any right or property shall be, or ‘purport to be, &c., the punishment of which is not within the degrees before prescribed, shall be guilty’ot} forgery in the third degree.” Now it is conceded that thisgletter was such an instrament as is pointed out in the statute. It was an instrament by which a pecuniary demand to a very large amount ($25,000 I believe) was created. The forging of such an instrument then was forgery in the third degree. Then in a subsequent paragraph of the statute we d that every person whoshall be convicted of ut- tering such an instrument shall suffer the same pun- ishment as if guilty of forging said instrument. ‘Therefore you sce that whether you 4ind that he forged this instrument or uttered it, the punishment is the same, the offence being essentially the same. Now, perhaps, it may be proper to explain the tech- nical term “utter,” and then with one other re- mark my duty as to the law of the case will be discharged. He is charged with having uttered this instrument. Now this “ uttering” is thus explained by the Supreme Court:—“Uttering,” says Judge wan, giving the opinion of the Court, ees quoting an English writer, ‘is any disposal or negotiation of a forged instrument to another person.” He Pciere other authorities on this point, among them definition of the term in Johnson’s Dictionary, “to vend, publish, sell,” &c. Thinking Tomlinson’s explanation of the term too Jarge, udge Cowan comes finally to the conclusion that the instrument must be “negotiated” with a fraudulent intent. ‘Then there is another, and but,one other, princi of law to which I must advert. You observe t both these counts of the indictment ee the actto have been cummitted in the city of New York. Now, to find the prisoner guilty of this act, you must believe that the prisoner forged it here in the city of New York. But, as I observed before, the chief offence is the “uttering” the “ negotiating” of the instrument to another person, and though that had been done abroad, yet he may be guilty under the statute. The case to which [ have recently called your attention wasa very celebrated one, in our ju- lence, and one of recent occurrence—it was that of Benjamin Rathbone—a name almost historic from the magnitude of his offences. The proof in his case was that he put. the forged instrument into the post office of the city of New York, and the court then came to this principle, that the crime of uttering or publishing is not complete ~peil the pass io transferred or comes to the hands of some other person Man te felon, and- till it reaches the person to whom sent. Now, I trust you understand all the law on’ this point. if this note speaks of, wag not his testimony as important and | was fo ed by Monroe Edwards in the city of | abroad. Could I suppose a person like him to hi more 60 than the evidence of Uncle Charest” We New York, he isguilty—if “ negonated mage ef hee anything. 1 woe say be made en enerie bier: rag 5, sam gan gto od pean edo Brown, Brothers & Soe. fhe he is guilty sdtting so large bills. Ha should have. got smaller - rs * a. It was Int os where—in the Desert of Zahara—or in few Orleans and reached 1 Brown, Brothers & Got rel.” This pers is had dian, peak vert nen red. This person then had another part yet to per- form. He had got the money—he flag gh far per- fected his plot, with a dexterity that excites admira- tion amid all our condemnation—still he had not done all. He had to change these bills . into funds which would not attract notice, and could not be traced. A retired country place could not afford the requisite facilities—in Baltimore there were too many eyesonhim, and therefore the natural re- sources were Philadelphia or New York. Gentle- tlemen, how far does the proof go in this case ? Positive testimony as to the committal of the forgery I'said we could not expect. Forgery is a crime which naturally and of course seeks secresy. Nevertheless handwriting presents testimony whale nearly approaches positive proof. Before proceed- ing to that point let me remark, that to my mind it apears that there wasin all the plot one presiding spirit But Isee nothing incompatible with that idea that the person may have had the assistance of subordinates. And another thing I may say is, that the person who had the consummate ability to effect these plans— who had a countenance not a muscle of which mov- ed, and nerves equal to the iy soot of any occa- sion—he would be wanting to himself if, when ar- rested and brought before any tribunal he would not xhibit a well-constituted defenee. ‘That dexterity is not gone—that memory which took such accurate note of time—which knew the arrival of the postand the departure of the mails, and when a letter should Teach its destination, and when an answer would bya commission, if he pleased. Again, this John- oa would not tell the name of the veseel he arrived at Havana in. Why? Because by that name we could have traced him, and seen under what name he went out, and all about him. As gos A recovered, it is $7000 less than we lost. But Ed- wards had time to dispose of some of these funds for future meies. And his appearance here from day today 8 no honest man who ears his bread by the sweat of his brow would dare to ap- pe we to you that he has still plenty of mo- ney at his ope oa ‘Wh ee ay false he was arrested, for the Texas for ry.” me — honest Kentuckian who. then he ‘is guilty. Or if it was ‘put into the office at Alexandria, or at any of the intermediate places, and reached Brown, Brothers & Co., then he is also guilty of uttering ‘it in the city of New York. The principle comes down to this, that if he by any means whatever put this note in a course of transmission to Brown, Brothers & Co. at New Or- leans, Alexandria, or any of the intermediate places between those cities the city of New York, or by an innocent agent, then he isguilty of the offence 2 ly statute, Lees rd “ a narron.oOns- pass. I have now v rietly, trust sufficient! explained it to sis Phere i no difficulty, I believe, about the law; of that you are the judges. Here I would igindly leave the case, which has been prepared wit at industry, and argued with surprising talent. But although not so absolutely my duty to sum up the evidence as it is to pro- nounce the law, nevertheless it is my duty so to do. lam aware that you are much cabausted.s and as for myself, 1 must confess that I address you under circumstances of great physical and mental fatigue, r this tagcat trial, coming as it has, at the close of the term. Still’I will endeavour to dis- charge my duty in all points. The prisoner, gentle. men of the jury, was arrested on the 2d of Oct., 1841, and taken before Recorder Vaux, of the City ot Philadelphia, on the charge of having defrauded Brown Brothers and Co. of $25,000 and ards;hav- ink received that amount of money in Baltimore,Ma- Tyla it’s the vied in the State of Kentucky. Fook at Mr. Elder's testimony. He is a minister of the Gospel, and Se of the world ; and the education of ministers of the Gospel they are not taught to know any thing of a world they are sent to reform. The’ dornot go to political meetings, and that’s the very where i Be to go, where sin most abounds. Elder says he saw him at Baltimore the m of August 31—that he had come from Washington aay ing, and joing back to Washi Hon “Ls | tyland, and Richmond, Virginia. ‘The first enqui back—which arranged any detail with, as I here are aor way-bill Be hg the if ina criminal case is, has there beta Gseme'come might uy int the words of the counsel, the gen “Monroe Edwardes ol Was bill ge- | Tilted? That the instrument is forged of course | rity ofa Napoleon—all these are still active, and you we have the most conclusive evidence on earth—the evidence of Shaw, a member of the house of Maun- sell, White and Co., who srobeuinoee it a forgery ; and also of his own particular signature—that mode in which the address of the house was put by himself. But there are certain other circum- stances which attended this crime to which od attention ought tobe called, because rom the crime itself certain inferences may be drawn, directing your attention to the criminal. I would remark here, that thisis a case e:sentially circumstantial . There is very little direct proof. Some there is to which I will in due Course direct your attention ; but still there is no itive proof—that is, there is no femn brought forward who saw Munroe Edwards forge the paper, i fe it—no one who saw him utter thatis, if he did utter it. You are here to arrive at that meoonay A carefully considering the cir- cumstances of the case ; and the question will then be, whether these circumstances are so clear in their infe: so fertile in their deductions, as to leave a jury ithout rational doubt as to the eri emphasize that word “rational,” be- it ering doubt—no loud paki oeee 6 hiner mind which gman doubt firmly set- need not be surprised that that person, whoever he may be, is capable of making a defence correspond- ing to the ingenuity and talent which char- acterized the erime for which he is tried. Now, as to the Lyre ag Lewis Tappan says that he thinks the letter to Maunsell, White & Co., signed H. 8, Hill, is in the handwniting of Monroe Edwards. Recorder Vaux, in his evidence, says he hag no doubt that it is Monroe Edwards’ hand- writing. Now, what are the rtunities these gentlemen had of knowing his dwriting, and whether it resembled those given in evidence. Lewis Tappan had received notes but he said he was not sure whether he had ever seen him write, but he thought he had. At all events, he had re- ceived seyeral notes which he knew to be his from the fact of their being received by his bo Henry, as he was called. Recorder Vaux had seen him write often and had good opportunities of form- ing his judgment, and he had no doubt of its being his. Vaux is confident it is written by him. Again, Le there are others who say, and yery justly, too, that the letters si Maunsell, White & Co.,and those signed John P.Caldwell,are written ina disguised hand, which can hardly be said to belong to one person or another. But, gen- A tothe 5th ot September, he returned to Miss Phillips. He was to be married to her, yet was absent that time from her without’ ane to her. On the book St Ficheo on the Ist September, is the name of Caldwell, Le., Room No. 17. The next day he asked about and on the morning of the 3d ef hotel, and that landlord (Clend Edwards is the man. But again, on the book of the hotel at Frederick, Maryland, on the 8d isthe name M. Edw: La. wi there that night, he could not have been at Rich- mond that morning. But ot came on his book, and that no such man ever staid at his house. This, then, was put there to prove an alibi. This defence has been got up with such con- art skill as can only be paralleled by the nature of the forgery itself. The magnitude of this should make you trebly cautious. If the com- weit ofevidedee, they wil wrike the tial ies wel of evidence, they wi e ‘tri from the statute book. “No doubt Monroe ar he was But his bei K is decision; it must be a ratio! Set | tlemen, it is nevertheless a fact, that there may be tucky doeen’t make him o Fan he’s at, | tling iteelfin hie mind. Turn, then, your attention, | discovered in a disguised handwriting peculiarities pen | < Meutuean’ ¢ ‘or “a. gentlemen, for a few moments to this crime itselt, | which will enable you to distinguish the writer. Whiting then read Ed: by As bed bre Harry and see what inference it affords. Here, then, on the | There may be an idiosyneracy of the writer—a pe- culiar personal character ziven to a word orto some words which may lead to the detection of the writer. Again, on the other hand, gentlemen, you have the testimony of Samuel Ellis, a witness whose testimony is entitled to every ct, and on whose evidence the defence have reli — prove his ees writing in denpaaeans instances, loes not leve %e to the handwriting of Monroe Ed- wards. Then, gentlemen, there is another slight circumstance to which I will direct your attention ; for although it is a slight circumstance, still it is my duty to direct your attention to it, as it may assist yon in arriving at or discovering the author oF these forged letters. This is the alleged peculiarity in the spelling of the word “few.” In the forged letter signed Maunsell, White & Co., to Messrs. Brown Brothers & Co., this word is spelt ficu. The same peculiarity is found in the four letters, or rather the three letters written by Monroe Edwards to his friends. ‘Two of these are to his friend Wild, and one to Winfred. No, I make an error. One of them is to his friend Wild, one to Winfred, and the other to Smith, in London. These letters will be handed to you, gentlemen, and you will examine them and see for jpamaioes. Thave stated this circuinstance to ecause, shows some might think it one id not deserve the atten- tion of the jury, yet itis one which may assist you gentlemen, in arriving at a just conclusion, and it is one which ought to have due weight. Bad spelli ought not to convict a man, as the learned counse stated with a mixture of argument and humor which e tly. highly amused all who heard him. But Ld gre: 9th of July, 1841, a letter is put into the Post office, at Philadelphia, directed to faunsell, White & Co, of New Or! and on that day according to the testimony of witnesses not to be disputed, the prisoner {was at Jones’ Hotel. This letter sat that the writer, oie eae “ Hagh 8. Hill” is with a brother, I think, who is Dag i alarge cotten estate in Philips Co. Arkansas—that has been recommended by his friend, Mr. Gray of Richmond, Va., to this house—that it is necessa- ty toc im to have ‘the usual supplies given by mer- ct planters—that he now at the north get- ting engines—asks if any ef the members of the firm will be on at the north, and if not, wishes to know the name of their corres mdent in New York to whom he could remit. This letter is receiv. ed by Mannsell, White & Co. and an answer 18 transmitted giving the great end of the plan in this case—the ame of Maunsell, Whito & Co — the signature—and what was also essential, the name of their correspondent in New-York. The next is the celebrated letter in question—a letter urporting to be from Maunsell, White & Co. to rown, Brothers & Co., written ‘on the 10th of Au- ust, 1841. It introduces one John P. Caldwell to eir favorable notice as being then on a visit to Virginia, speaks of himas one of the —Jem- phasize that, for you recollect the epell of the word—who amongst the wreck and bt yee abl credit remains ath | nd of him as hay 101t bales of cotton weighing 465,060 pow “g ware,” a teehsioal tenn’ and worth at | eae juests the Browns ta assist their fri fr. Caldwell and if they can do no better, author- be charged with perjury oF not. 4 men are to return to the bosoms of their lovely and virtuous families and say we've been to New York and swore honestly to the trath, and twelve men woulda’t believe us. Do agree in this cause—either one way or the other—do agree, above all thing:, and let this cause be terminated. Either for weal or woe. Convict him if the evidence is sufficient, and if not, acquit. Come to some con- lusion—let me beg of you not to ben ng but bo for the benefit of the judiciary—for the credit of the country. : fe Sesston. The excitement was not so great this afternoon ; but there was a great crowd of beautiful women inattendance. Precisely at seven minutes past four Judge Kent rore and delivered the following :— Judge Kent's Charge, Gentirwey or THR JuRY—My remarks will neces- sarily be somewhat extended. I shall endeavor to make them brief. I hope that none of you will re- main standing than you find it convenient.— Caldwell to draw on them for a sum’ not ex- ing. at distinction hog the spelling of rhe ey bar, gentlemen the dary, ceeding $30,000, at not less than thirty days.— +A TR mogul! sta n for forging an instrament, Lays of t to thedictionary as for wtering that nnrinent when forged, owing | aie "end ie intas comtatce Mee se | ea of the maaner therefore, the f ‘ mation of one word has a pecu- liarity, and you, d that peculiarity in that word in other letters written by the same individual, | must call your attention, and direct you to the unlikeli- z rdinary manner of spelling being made use of by any other individual, for it will be seen that an individual who i to a standard in his own min that another individual has access to. T remark, however, that there is one ease in thisbook which | hold, of the same kind, which did occur, and where ported by proof afforded by bad it to you in order to show you similar circumstances, in other f It is an English book on circumstantial evidence, and contains a collection of all the most extraordinary cases on record. You, ger.tlemen, will pay attention to this case, for it is as interesting to you as to lawyers, and I read it to you, as | think’ we should, in some tneasure, take such books for our guides, regarding them as Ido 1 wisdom of other coun- is is a case where « man ed for feloniously writing a threatening letter to another pegon, and which was said to be i andwriting. The counsel in this case for the produced the prisoner’s son mess, who confessed that own handwriting. hood of that extrao: lls incorrectly, refers and which is not one @ person was trang how other Courts in countries, have acted. inthe light of the coll tries and other ages. letter was in | from memory a copy of the . found. ' This he did, and when it was examined it left no douot but that he was the writer of the origi be observed, that he did not write memory, but he wrote the substance of it; there however, in the copy the sar and in the same manner asin the ori was on the ground of the bad spelling in the copy that the father charge, and the boy, being afterwards tried, was convicted and transported on the charge, and in consequence of the bad spelling. that the bad spelling here acquitted the father, and the bad spelling convicted t ‘ou will perceive, was the it verbatim from was acquitted of the You will observe ion, and the spelling, in both instances, boy referred to seme erroneous standard in his own mind. Gentlemen of the Jury—it is suf- ficient tor me to state this circumstance to you; whether you will pay that attention to it which the counsel for the prosecution has laid upon it, or i consider it a circumstance so slight as to be undeserving that attention you, gen- tlemen of the jury, are exclusively to say. ‘The next circumstance to which I would call your attention is this; on the 2d October, 1841, Munroe Edwards is arrested in Philadelphia, and brou u his possession is and in this trunk is discovered a large sum of money amounting to $43,600. according to the scheme of the ion for exactly one m September received money, and on the second of October being then, gentlemen, traced to the f 000 on the 2d September, and we find in the trunk of Monroe Edwards $43,- 600 on the 2nd October, 1841. notes which were found. tempt has been made at iden regretted that Banking arrangements here are not conducted with such minute regulations as of that great Banking establishment, the Bank of England. where the number and description of each note pai noted and entered. much to be preferred, and would add to the difficulties tof achieving fra case no attempt has been made at identification, and xpressly stated that no num- and therefore he could not identify e amounts of the notes were simi- There are, however, certain indications of a k ossessor of this money would be likely to adopt, and which may be of use as afford- ing us some indication of the course which he would follow. Of the money obtained, there was $8000 innotes of the Bank of Baltin Bank of America, nd wm the Norfolk Bank, rences are just as to the character of the person who received this money, the disposition of that person, with his experience too in these matters, would lead the possessor of the money to cl of it as soon and as much whether you wil prosecution, in his arrested. We have, possession of Caldwe! . With respect to the his possession, no at- Such exactness indeed Mr. Jamieson e: bers were taken. them, although th kind which the po nore, $25,000 on the 4000 on the Bank of Virginia, Now if our infe- hange the character , Las ible ; and if Jno. P. Caldwell is the same with Monroe Edwards, the change which we should expect has occurred. For of the money in Edwards’ is of the same kind. remaini cient to characterize it. obtained were notes of of Baltimore, Bank of Now in the mone; f the Union Bank, the Ban Maryland, Bank of Virginia, orrie was received 25,600 on the Bank by this same John P. Caldwell. Now, the money received at Baltimore and Richmon has undergone the same change which we should be led to expect'by the wish of the possessor to se- The notes of the Bank ished from $25,600 to $8,000, timore from 10,000 to 3,000. The quantity of gold hasincreased, and notes of the Phoenix Bank and National Bank of this city have been substituted for those of the others. You must remember that these notes o} equal to specie, so that if he c ing the character of the notes, if he formed them into notes on this city they were the same to him as American gold. of American gold found had increased, and differed materially from that paid to Jno. P. e anda large number of British sove- reigns had been discovered, which were not ac- counted for otherwise than that he these notes for them. ‘There is, eral corespondence which would some variation, which would likewise and it is for the jury to decide whether th stance of the possession of this money is | weighed against him. Now gentlemen, if this mo- ney is not sccounted for, is it not astrong circum- stance against the* prisoner? Not strong enough to conyict him, but certainly strong as corroborative testimony to strengthen the case against him.— With respect to circum: that tends to strenj As the Counsel said y straw is not sufficient sufficient of themselves do say however, that according to the strictest rules of logic and reasoning, circumstances essen- tially strengthen others, and where various circum- stancesare collected and placed together in a mass,the inferences which it would argue are the impossi- bility that these masses should co-exist, and point all of them to the same person and the same train of In France, indeed, where matters of this sort are submitted to an arithmetical test, ‘obabilities and improbabilities are accu- rately calculated, it is reduced to a sort_of problem, so that you can ascertain the which cach bears. Every inft Y justly drawn, indeed vastly strengthens the infe- Tences against the prisoner. If, then, you find this man at Philadelphia, where he is arrested, with $43,600 in his possession, portions of which answer to the description of the money obtained, the infe- Tences to be drawn from this transaction are, that cions are increased only, iow he has attempted to account for the pos n. this we have only the hnson and Miss Phillips ; to this point that their iden Now, what is his account ? Itis this: That he was on the 2d of August at Balti- id there appears to be no reason to doubt that he was at Baltimore on or about this time. While he is there, one Charles F. Johnson and he me sort of a speculation, some land, which he states eure it from iden: of America have ish those of the Bank of Balti f this city were ‘ould succeed in the boy Flanson, however, that g°n- stantial evidence, any thing then the evidence is of weight. with respect to straws, one , nor will twenty straws be to convict the prisoner. degree of probability rence which can be Well, then, let session of this mone: evidence of Charles and it is only with respect evidence is important. have entered into so: whereby he introduces belongs to him, in Texa: think, of ten leagues ; son is to invest $50,000 d at $200 each — the scheme bei ing slaves in Martinique, 'exas to cultivate cotton o1 of Edwards. On looking ovei T am impressed with the idea that there was some speculation intended by Monroe Edwards. The counsel who opened the case for the defence and stated what the defence intended to bring for- as evidence, stated that the opinion of Mr. Berryer, an eminent French Barrister, whoee fame is not confined to France, but_ is spread over the iven an opinion on the feasibilit importing slaves from the Frenc! lonies and taking them to Texas. i that this was probable, and that there might be some such scheme on foot. 1. respondence with his friend Wild he speaks of the indies, and that he had’a speculation afloat ificent results ; and and to the extent, as I and on the other and transporting them n the Texas plantations T the papers in this case, whole world, had I believe in the cor- ere which wasto give him magni Ui thi ct - step ke for the bold aspiring hi a8 edthimse! ‘And I think, that this $50,000 which he. ‘obtained sed n'a fulerum towards enabling him to accomplish his, ulterior and magnificent de- igns. The question for your consideration is this: to be to enter upon, well as extrinsic eviden its falsity in the very | by the jur i article purporting to have been signed at Baltimore, | character there is nothing, and gentlemen have vai- and which I think the jury will discover by their | ted in praising her up. | know nothing respecting own discernment. The first question is that this in- | her, and the counsel for the proseeution say they strument purports to have been executed on the 2d | know nothing of her. Caroline Phillips has, howe- August, and a counterpart having that date } ver, mentioned one fact of some importance. She duced, In ordinary circumstances, in courts o says that Monroe Edwards offered his hand in ma- tice, dates are taken to be correct und as evidence | trimony, and that day he offered to seitle on her of themselves. This is, however, but a weak infe- 000. She fixes that day by saying that it was rence, and it is a maxim of law that parties may be | the day after Mr. Larose ft, and as Mr. Larose left allowed to prove a date to an instrument or the day | on the seventeenth or eighteenth of Avgust, that on which it was executed, and nothing iseasier | would bring it down to the nineteenth Au- than for a witness to swear toa date. This instru- } gust. Ifshe did see $20,000 on that day, it would ment, however, bears date the second of August. A | go a great way to account for the possession of the respectable innkeeper at Baltimore, the keeper of | money which he says he received from Johnson.— the Eutaw House, swears, however, that he saw | J believe, howe that when you have considered this instrument executed. When, however, he is } all the circumstan you will find great singularity asked as to the time, he cannot tell, but thinks itwas | through the whole of this transaction. It is, to say either the conclusion of summer or the beginning | the least of it, very unceremoncous hashes that of the fall. Edwards, it was proved, was at Balti- | he should offer his hand to a young and lovely gir! more on the 2d August, and also on the 4th Sept- | not 18 years of age,ufter a month’s acquaintance,an tember, that was the time when he wenttofetch his | offer to settle twenty thousand dollars on her, nephew Hurd, and when Johnson and himself with | 2nd though it may be the custom in Lou- that nephew came tothe Waverly House. L infer |istanna, it does not prevail to any great extent ashe wos at Fredericksburg on the 3d in the eve- | in either Philadelphia or New York. Now it seems ning that he came to Baltimore onthe 4th and went | that between the 19th and 30th, she was absent from far hie nephew, and came on with him to the Waver- | home ona visit to Bordentown at least a week, and ly Hoase. The name of the nephew, it appears, is | he also was absent from the 24th to the 28th, so Daniel Morgan Hurd. Now on the 4th Sepvember, | that it would seem, in all, their acquaintance had it was material for John P. Caldwell, whoever he | been three weeks old. In that short pane of time was, to account for the money which he had in his | ke had courted this young lady, and had offered possession Therefore, the scheme in the West In- | $20,000 to be settled on her. J pass from Johnson's dies, would do extromely well, and may probably | testimony entirely in mae this, and dismiss being entitled to credit. Against her have suggested the idea that he came possessed of | itentirely from tiny mind. I look upon this young the money on this plan. J hi olwaye remarked | lady’s testimony entirely apart from his. “Now that there is some adinixture of truth in false testi- | when they speak of care bee do so by memoranda i made by Miss Lucy Philips, for she says when he mony. It is rarely seen without some troth, A nh bold, naked lie Fis a fmonster, which shocks | left on the 31st Jaly, and returned, she entered it in at once and is rarely seen, There j the book. When Miss Phillips swears by the day some mixture of truth, and on this portie book, she undoubtedly swore to the truth, and there- falschood is piled sky high. 1 believe, therefore, teat | fore the counsel are right, in saying that the ut- there was some ground for this West India epeeuia- | most confidence must be given to her statemente— tion, but it is for you to decide what or hew meh. | as to the times of his Fons and coming, because Now gentlemen, our proof is the etter thatehe determines by dates. But when she swears however, men: that o to the offer of marriage, there is less confidence philosophers that ever tu; to be paced m what she says, because consideration of evideace one whe » n that she has no date to refer to, She swears others as well as by lawyers, Anche positively to the day the gloves were given—that has remarked that letters are the moet omy she knows to have been the 30th of Auguet. But sistants to evidence. ‘They are the guides to treth | the counsel, in order to fix the day of the offer, refer and the landmarks which point out the land when | to another fact ; the day that Mr, Larose left; she nothing else can be seen. It is not essential that | swears it was the day before he left ; and ontrefer- these letters should be true, they may be fabricated | ring to the book they find that he left on the 18th for the purpose of the evidence, but impressed upon | of August. In all this] am referring to the testimony them is the character of the parties, and they tell of of Mies Caroline Phillips, and she is testifying, Te- that character at the time, and by them we mea- | member, under the strongest and deepest feelings sure the statements which they may afterwards that ean possibly agitate the human breast. If she make, and the subsequent circumstances, we are | did not aceept this man for her future husband, she enabled to judge of For this purpose, take this | certainly did not reject him, and she bore towarda letter written byhim which I shallread to you, and | him certainly no small portion of regard and afiec- by which we will compare these subsequent occur- | tion. She speaks then under feelings the strongest Teuces and statements. It is one which is appa- | that any person can epeak under in favor of the pri- written in the openness, of his heart and the soner at the bar. Imean,to say nothing, remember, fulness of his friendship to this. Winnifred, and we | against her; 1 would not insinuate for a moment shall find this a specimen of this kind of evidence. | that she does not speak the truth, for | know nothing On the 2d August the prisoner a he received 3 F. of her, but at the same time I would point out that $50,000 at Baltimore from Charles F. Johnson, and | the deep feelings by which she must have been this he is put in possession of asthe means of carry- agitated, the favor ‘with which she evidently re- ing on this great speculation, Now, on, the 28th garded this man, the sympathy which is overt July, we find him writing from Philadelphia thathe | ready to rise up in the breast of a woman, especia was that night going south, without having at that for one to whom she is attached, may have cause time any expectation that in four days he wasto enter | her to be somewhat mistaken inthis matter; at all into this great speculation which was to put him in events, she spoke under some bias, and not to a cer- possession of $50,000, and without his having any | tainty, when she spoke of the offer, and this cir- amount in his possession ; more than that, we find | cumstance, therefore, does not account for. the him in January in London in a state of the most ney. Ihave as yet, gentlemen, disposed of but abject degradation, as his letter to his friend Smith | {wo circumstances; Ist, the hundwriting, and 2d, testifies, which contains something about bargain- | the finding of the money in the trunks, for the tes- ing ferhis watch. Here in Philadelphia, and I shall read you the letter, he does not entertain any idea of entering into this great speculation, and in fact is thinking of an nite different scheme from what he now says. I will, however, read it to you to show you how it is. Pinvapenenra, 28th July, 1841. tunony of Miss Phillips and Johnson only go to explain the possession of the money. And now to the direct proof that the prosecution has brought forw First, Munroe Edwards is shown to be in Baltimore on the 31st of August, and Rich- mond on the 2d of September. And if you believe these factsto have been made out, then the dis- tinguished counsel who last addressed you on the other side says that he'll give up the case. Mr. Keichofier says that he sent these drafts and checks from New York on the 28th August to Alexandria by mail. The prisoner's counsel contend that even an accomplice could not have got those drafts out of the office at Alexandria, so as to have taken them to Baltimore in time to have given them to Monroe Edwards on the morning of the Sist. Now, gen- demen, it is a matter of mathematical demonstra- tion that they did goto Alexandria, and that they did get back to Baltimore on the 3st ; and there- fore somebody must have brought them—if not Ed- wards, then perhaps an accomplice. He then rea- sons—but he touched that ground very slightly— that no accomplice could have brought them to Baltimore in that time, and then he takes the zround boldly that Monroe Edwards could not have been at Baltimore on the 31st of August. He relies for. prone of this on the testimony of the Misses Phillips ; and one says she speaks from her sister’s dates, But there is one fact that makes in. opposi- tion to her testimony. It is that on the way billsfrom Washington to Baltimore on the morning of the Sst of August, we find the name of Edwards; and on the way bills going from Baltimore to Washington back in the evening, we find the name of Caldwell. Now, if Miss Phillips is correot in her dates then this could not have been Monroe Thwards, but another Edwards who came from Washington to Baltimore that morning. Yet this is one circumstance out of many, and 1s to be received for what it is worth; and if you believe her then this could not have been the prisoner. Now we come to the great positive proof in the case, the personal identity. Ten ae sons swear to seeing him in Baltimore on the 3lst of August, and at Richmond on the 2d of Septem- ber. Nine swear positively; and one, Mr. Ider, swears he saw him in Baltimore either on the 81st of August or the Ist of September—he can’t be posi- tive which. Now, the gentlemen on the side of the defence contend, that with regard to personal iden- tity, about which so much has been said, that small reliance is to be placed upon it. That it is almost impossible to identify human features, and sj cially after a lapse of months. Now on the other side there isa remarkable minuteness and corres- pondence with which various circumstances and resemblance of countenance and person have been remembered. And if there is one thing more worthy of our serious attention than another itis. the great similarity, and at the same time dissimilarity, if. 1 may so ak, which pervades everything in nature. hat myste- vious and wonderful law impressed upon matter, which produces a similarity in everything of, the same species, and yet which at the same time heeps every species distinct : no two animals of the sane species exactly resemble each other—no two blades of grass are ‘alike, and yet they are never mistaken one for the other as a general rule—no two stars re- semble each other, and one star difiereth from another star in glory—no two individuals are exactly alike ; and the same principle pervades all the works of man. Yet all the productions from the hands of iny one mag bear the same general mark and feae tures, which readily enable us to distinguish them from the productions of any one else. Then, again, we have the fact that all the vast transactions of the commercial world are regulated and distinguished and depend upon a similar rule or law—the mere signature of an individual to a paper, This isknown, here by the inflexion of a line—there by the pecu- liarity of a dot; and so on. And so it is of the human countenance. The features of no two. men resemble each other precisely, though there is the same great outlines in the features of all. Yet there is the pecuhar general expression in each face— that eaten something which pervades each individual's countenance renders it so striking that it cannot readily be mistaken for another. Yet no doubt there are several remarkable cases of resem- blance that have often occurred, and that will often occur again. There was the remarkable case of Hoag, who wastried in this city for bigamy, where ® woman claimed to be the own wile of a man, swore positively to him, whenhe was not her hus- band. Then there was the remarkable case of Mar- tin Guerre, in Germany,* which puzzled the courts and theJawyers there fora long time. And there are many other cases which have become matter of history. But these are only exceptions to # striking zeneralrule. And yourmay, any of you, turn your “yes over this andience, and yeu may be able readi- lytopick out and identify every man, each from the other, by some striking general iunpression which fastens itself on the mind, but whieh cannot be described. So when you walk the streets, you can readily see some one whom you can instantly recognise at a glance from the myriads who thi the thoroughfares of the city. And it would be to strike a blow at all human credibility, and virtually closing the doore of our tribunals, to say that we eannot identify those whem we have seen for an hoor at a time, and conyersed with under peculiar circumstances—so etriking as to fasten our atten- tion for the time fully upon the individual. But there is another case which I will to Youfrom the same Work I have already quoted, “ Willeen Circumstantial Evidence”:— "The learned Judge should have said in France, Da. Wistenen,— Your letter of 26th has just come to hand, enclosing one from Prentiss. ‘The husiness upon which I wrote you for the benefit of Miss has been managed by herself, therefore need not give you any further trouble. I have been very unexpectedly detainéd here by the sickness of my nephew, but shall leave hereto-night. I write to Mr. Prentiss by this meil, and have writtén to him where he can see me, and satisfied him that t ‘have nf been hid about New York, ashe supposes. As to Powell, I cannot suppose that he can have any friendly regard for me after the unkind manner that he spoke of me behind my back. Ido not wish him any harm, but [have no desire to see him. I can do without him, and Ihave no doubt he will get on without any aid from me. Write me to. New Orleans, care of Wm. R. B. Wills, or ifyou have anything of interest to write about between ndw and Friday next, write to me to this place. Hurd will be here until Saturday morning, and he will over- take me in Prince William County, Va., where I shall stop for a fiew days. If can be of any servace to you, only let me know how; if had funds to any extent I would send you some, but in providing for Miss Kitty, and with Hurd’s expenses and mine, I find shall have to call on my relations in the Old Dominion fer a couple of hundred, in order to get home. If you do not write before, write'to New Orleans as above. Tam your friend, M. EDWARDS. Now, gentlemen, this letter speaks of his feelings being entirely different from those of a person about entering on such a speculation ashe would have you believe. In this letter he states that he is going to Prince William County, and that he will have to write to his friends in the Old Dominion for a cou- ple of hundreds to enable him to gethome. Now this shows a great ubsence of expectation, that he has no idea whatever of this speculation, which is to put him in possession of $50,000. _ About this ab- sence of expectation the same thing is to be re- marked in writing to his friend Wild. He speaks in his letterto him of having been successful in all his operations, and makes use of what I suppose is a cant Southern phrase “that he hos his pocket full ofrocks.” He speaks of this great WestInd: cu lation, which Tthink does exist, but itis not in evi- dence, and nothing that pointed to that as being the source from whence he had this $50,000, which is said to have been paid him on the 2d August. What is the condition of Charles F. Johnson in relation to this matter? He says that he is the owner of 250 slaves, which he values at $200 each in Martinique Now let us for a few moments consider what Mar- tinique is. It is a small French Island, almost the only,one of her colonies in the West Indies which is left to France, and is about thirty miles in length and ten or fifteen broad, and contains hardly any places but the two small towns of St. Pierre and St. Thomas. It is a small Island, shut out by the sea from connecton with any great extent of tari So small that any person possessing property to the extent which this Johnson must if he is possessed of the 250 negroes mentioned {must of necessity be known; and yet he is found upon enquiry for the purpose of taking examination before the com- mission either in St. Pierre or St. Thomas, two very small towns, to be perfectly unknown. it may be that he had contracted for the negroes which he informed the person whom he intrusted with the money that he had in his possession ; but, in that case, he might have brought evidence in support of it. is is a circumstance for the jury to consider, whether this person who paid $50,000 to Monroe Edwards,was to deliver to him 250 negroes,must not have been well known on an island not so large as Long Island from his property and plantations in that small island. His credibility is in some degree da- maged when a person of so much property cannot be found on this small island. There is another thing to which your attention should be called. n this man is examined at Havana, in the island of Cuba—we will put out of the conside tion of the case the informal document which has been commented on, inasmuch as it is not under oath ; we will therefore put that entirely out of this case—when examined, he shows this contract, by which he delivered $50,000, and bound himself to deliver two hundred slaves, and he also exhibits a receipt for this money, which he says he hae paid Monroe Edwards. When, however, he is asked how he got and where he received this money, the witness refnses to tell, and says J will not ansiver this question, you have noright to askthis question, it isnot your business, and so on; and to question after question he refuses to answer. In yeference to this part of the examination I can only say that if such replies had been given on this stand he would necessarily have beon sent to prison, for he gives the information which is required on the one side and refuses to the other what they want; and had the counsel made application the whole of this commission would have been excluded from the case. ‘They however have not done so, and it is here for you to judge upon. This question, however, is not important, for had Charles F. Johnson been desirous of throw- ing light 5 rN subject he would have honestly answered these questions, and had he been Wo by our system of jurisprudence, the Court would have compelled him to reply to those questions, and i ide infor. pt Bet Sa Moyet bd nt this evidence as to the contract, you will take: it into consideration, if not, the contract is di from the evidence and you will di@niss bio ue F. Johnson from your minds, Another