|
'TRIAL OI' JOT1_I~ 1\`. \\'EBSTER. 21
College in readiness, as we happen to know, from having duplicates
from the same surveyor, Mr. Bryant; and perhaps they will be able to
furnish a more complete representation of it by means of a model.
After introducing their testimony in part, we shall be better able to
judge of the need of further personal observation.
The Chief Justice remarked, that there was no doubt of the
authority of the Court to grant a view, if they deemed one expedient.
Views had been granted of late in several capital cases. He could now
recollect the instance of Washington Goode's case, tried last year, and
of a case of Arson, the name of which he could not call to mind, which
occurred three or four years before, in this county. The Court would
consider, of the application; and if the progress of the trial seemed
to develop a necessity for a more immediate and personal inspection
of the Medical College, it would be permitted at some time when the
Court were not actively engaged; perhaps to-morrow morning, before
the opening.*
Mr. Bemis having proceeded to call the witnesses for the Govern-
ment, Mr. Sohier moved that all except the witness actually testifying,
should be removed from the court-room. The counsel for the Com-
monwealth having intimated that they had no objections to the course,
provided the order were made applicable also to the witnesses for the
defence, and that an exception should be made in favor of the medical
and scientific witnesses, the Court ordered that all the witnesses on
both sides, except the class last named, should withdraw to an adjoin-
ing room till sent for.
Before commencing the examination, the Court intimated, in reply
to an inquiry on the part of the prosecution, that witnesses would be
expected to be examined to the extent of their knowledge upon all
points of inquiry, and should not be examined in part, merely, at on--
stage, with a view to being recalled to other points, at a subsequent
stage.
Charles M. Kingsley, sworn,-examined by Mr. Bemis. I was
agent for Dr. George Parkman, and had been such from May or June,
1836, .till the time of his decease. I had the care of his real estate,
and used to see him every day, and sometimes three or four times a
day, while I was his agent. I always made it a point to see him at
least once a day. The Doctor owned many estates at the west end,
comprising the principal part of the neighborhood around the Medical
College, and near where I live, in Blossom street. He owned all around
me, and frequently called on me at my house.
I remember the day of his disappearance. He was first missed, Fri-
day, Nov. 23d, 1849. 1 wanted to see him on the afternoon of that day,
and called at his house, No. 8 Walnut street, a little before three o'clock.
I had seen him the day before, Thursday, and had been with him most
of the day. I called on him, Friday, to get an answer about a lease.
I did not find him at home, as I expected, though it was immediately
after his usual time, of dining, half-past two. He was usually very
punctual about his habits, and about his hour of dining. I had never
been disappointed before in meeting him at that hour: I suppose I
'Prior to the Revised Statutes, the Court considered that a view should sel-
dom, if ever, be permitted in a capital case: and then, without the presence
of any other person than the of$cer in attendance. Knapp's Case, 9 Pick.
495. Parker's Case, 2 Pick. 550. But by the Revised Statutes, Char. 137. 3
10, " the Court may order a view by any jury empanelled to try a criminal
case." ,
The case referred to by the Chief Justice, of the view on the trial for
arson, was doubtless that of 'Edmund Hollihan. tried in December. 1845. Two
other views in capital cases, besides those named, have also been granted in
this county, within the last two years.-in Joseph Jewell's Case. tried May,
1848; and in Augustus Dutee's trial in July. of the same year. In all these
instances, counsel, or eome other representative of each party, attended the
jury, by permission of the Court_
|
