Richmond Enquirer

LAW CASE.

In the Supreme Judicial Court, sitting at Lechmere's Point for the County of Middlesex, Chief Justice Parker, and Judges Thacher, Jackson, and Putnam being present, on Friday last, came on the trial of James Phillips, for hiring, counselling and procuring, one Thomas Daniels, to commit a Burglary, and murder at Stoneham on the 26th of November 1819. The Indictment set forth the burglary committed by Daniels, at Stoneham in the house of Jacob Gould: the robbery perpetrated there particularly of 20 silver dollars and 30 half eagles--on the night of the said 25th of November. Daniels, it is well known, committed suicide in prison, before it was possible to try him.

An objection was made by Col. Fay one of the counsel for the prisoner, against the trial of the Defendant without his own consent before the principal was convicted according to the rules of law.

The Solicitor General contended that the defendant was liable to be tried against his consent, notwithstanding the objections advanced: He observed that a guilty man ought not to be discharged of his guilt by the act of God--or the act of suicide committed by the principal in the present case. He built his argument on the basis of one general rule--that the accessory may be compelled to be tried whenever it is impossible afterwards to compel the principal to be tried. He illustrated this position. After some remarks in reply by Col. Fay, the court decided that the Solicitor General might proceed to establish the facts in the case; but that the legal question should be reserved for future consideration.

The Solicitor General, after the witnesses for government were removed into an adjoining room, proceeded to open the case.

He observed, the facts would sustain the following positions.

'That a burglary was committed at Stoneham: that it was perpetrated by Thomas Daniels, who afterwards committed suicide in prison: and that the Defendant, James Phillips, counselled and procured the said Daniels to perpetrate the crime.

Several witnesses were sworn, who entered into a detailed statement of the robbery and murder at Mr Jacob Gould's house, the particulars of which horrid act have been already before the public.

The mode of the apprehension of Daniels at Newport, his inquiries in Stoneham respecting the Goulds previous to the murder and burglary--his admission at his examination and its subsequent suicide, were also established.

It appeared however that the Solicitor General relied principally upon proving the fact of a conspiracy, to rob the Gould family in Stoneham, which took place in the State Prison, between Daniels and the defendant Phillips, a short time previously to their enlargement in November last.

This arrangement was entered into, in presence of one Lawrence a fellow prisoner, whose term of imprisonment had not expired, and for whom a pardon had been obtained for the purpose of rendering him a competent witness. He had departed, a short time before he was called, over Craigie's Bridge towards Boston.

The Solicitor General however, stated that the facts he expected to establish by the witness: and the court adjourned the trial to nine o'clock on Saturday, in expectation that in the mean time Lawrence might be found.

A capias issued for Lawrence on Friday afternoon, but he was not brought into court until after the term of adjournment on Saturday morning--When the jury returned into court, the Solicitor General stated that he had no further evidence to produce, and thereupon the court informed the jury that in their opinion there was not sufficient evidence in the case to put the prisoner on his defence: and a verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury. After the jury was dismissed, Lawrence was brought into court upon the capias--After a short examination of him and the keeper of the state prison, and a statement from the solicitor general that the pardon had never been delivered, and was not intended to be delivered until Lawrence came forth to testify, Lawrence was ordered into the custody of the keeper of the state prison, to be recommitted for the residue of the term to hard labour to which he had been sentenced. At the same time the court directed the keeper of the state prison to inform him that he might bring his habeas corpus, if he thought himself entitled to the benefit of the pardon. It is understood that Lawrence has consented to perform the residue of his sentence, from a conviction that the pardon was granted (though not delivered) upon a false and fraudulent representation on his part of the knowledge that he pretended to have of the conspiracy in the state prison between Daniels and Phillips--Lawrence confessed that he fabricated the story of Phillips in concert with Daniels, for the sole purpose of obtaining his pardon, and he stated to the court that he knew nothing against Phillips.

The court also gave a decided and unanimous opinion to the jury, upon the question of law reserved at the opening of the trial, viz. that upon the principles of the common law, Phillips could not be tried without his consent, before the conviction of the principal felon, and that as Daniels committed suicide before his trial, Phillips must be discharged upon that ground.

Boston Dai Adv.