OCR Text |
Show Tue Hiibeeck Trial. C0STISCED FROM FII'.ST PACE. St. Louis, 10. Judge Km m said this evidence is incompc't'tit, bt-caue it is presumptive and is intended to show that one of the envelopes was addressed to the defendant. At this slace of the case it is intended to establish es-tablish a conspiracy between parties at St. Louis and the defendant. It is the connecting link in the theory of the prosecution. Thu3 far the case is barren in evidence to show that the defendant had any connection with the conspiracy in St. Louis. The nuked question is represented that the department did not receive a letter containing money from the conspiracy. No such presumption pre-sumption can arise now. The evidence evi-dence ot the witness basin tact no relevancy to tho question, because there is no evidence to follow to show that the defendant ever received the envelopes, even if they were deposited deposit-ed in the mad box. There is not a ccintilla of evidence before your honor or the jury lo show thus fai that defendaut ever had any connection connec-tion whatever with the ring iu St. Louis, and therefore there can be no presumptive evidence that he ever received tho envelope. Judyo Purler Will your honor allow me to state more specifically the grounds of objection? Tho mle of law is this, that where here ia a conspiracy that conspiracy can be proved by confession of the conspirators conspira-tors themselves; but the connection of another party to the conspiracy must be shown by extrinsic evidence. Declarations, written or oral, ol the conspirators cannot bind a third party. They cannot prove by their acts another man's acts. No declaration decla-ration of Joyce is evidence against Babcock. I learn from tho opening remarks of the district attorney that he proposes lo show by n witneas that Joyce wro'.e the name of Babcock on this U tter. If Joyce had said, "I intend to send this money to Babcock," that evidence would bo admissible. This evidence is only a written declaration, Joyce is no agent of ours. No ant or declaration dec-laration of his can hind us. They cannot can-not (jive secondary evidence without proving the destruction of tho primary prim-ary evidence. The question is, Is this competent evidence? If they had found the letter in the polemic ot Babcock, the law would not charge him with a knowledge of its contents unless he ae.lcd on it, but this is not tiie onso. It is a letter we never saw and never heard of until we heard these rumors here ahjut it, when it wa.-i made an act of llabcoek. It must provide by some other act ol his an-le-cedcnt to the time it was sunt. Col. Brodiicad lor the government It is not a qutstion as lo the conclusiveness con-clusiveness ot U alimony, but as to its competency, and thai ii all wo clain.i for it. Is it competent lo show to lh-? jury whether or not llabcoek w;ts a mem her of tho conspiracy? We do nol say this is all the c idencti we had to submit on lh:il point, "nut we munt maL-o a Mart lo inlroduru a part o! the te---liinony. A jury or any oilier tribunal nny infer trmn One l:u:L the exislencii ot unolhT 1 i.-t. We do not say it is eone-lnniv7iyt if thu IcLler was received by Jl.tivuek, we claim that it ii more or lc.js an uel conn cling mm witn the conspiracy. V. It. Slorrs gave pretty inu-:h i'.h-same i'.h-same argument as Jtulgu Porter. Hi! said there is no evidence lima fir lo show that money was ever pUeed in these envelop! s Might Ihere u-l have been a dexterous manipulation, through wnich the witness was induced in-duced to believe money wad put in j tho envelopes, b-it which in fact might have flipped into Joyce's pockets?; A man cannot be conjectured nn to I the gullows or gue-sed inlj the pen-ilentiarv. pen-ilentiarv. Kdwa'rd W. B. l'mzfr, of the firm! of Bevis & Fimx't. then lo.ik the ! stand, and lor lho fourth time re-1 pealed his story of the conspiracy and ; operations of his house during its existence. No iiww facts were brought out. The witness knew nothing relating in any way "u Gen. Babcock. Adjourned. |