THE JUDGE'S CHARGE.

JUDGE HOWELL (to the jury). The counsel, by declining to sum up the cause, have thrown a very unexpected burden on my hands, and they must not complain if I should fail to notice the whole of the testimony as fully as they might desire. The crime with which the defendants stand charged by the indictment is one of very great enormity. They were charged with having formed a wicked conspiracy to seize a citizen, under the protection of our laws, and enjoying the rights and entitled to the privileges of a free man, and without authority to transport him from the gaol of Ontario County to foreign parts, and there to secrete and imprison him; and with actually having carried into execution this conspiracy. The counsel for the defendants had cautioned the jury against the influence of popular excitement: it was true that great excitement had prevailed, and the Court rejoiced that it was sothe crime was one that ought to call forth the indignation of all virtuous citizens, and it was to be hoped that the excitement would never cease until the actors in this dark, and probably tragical affair, are brought to light, and the guilty punished. At the same time the jury are bound to divest themselves of all passion and prejudice, and to know nothing of this cause but what they derived from the testimony given them in the box where they are sitting. (The JUDGE defined a conspiracy and commented on the nature of the evidence by which it must in most cases be established.) It was not to be expected that a secret and wicked combination could be proved by producing the original compact, but by showing the acts of many individuals, acting in concert, all tending to the same unlawful end. The first question to be determined by you, under the first and second counts, will be, has such a conspiracy as that charged in the indictment been proved to have been formed by any person whatever; and if so, are the defendants on trial, or either of them, parties to it?-the second, are the defendants, or either of them, guilty of kidnapping and imprisoning Morgan, as charged in the two other counts?

As to the first question, the evidence produced on the part of the prosecution establishes most conclusively the fact of the conspiracy between certain persons; and it then becomes the important question, whether either of the defendants were parties to it. The prosecution do not profess to offer any direct evidence of such participation, but would infer it from the acts of the defendants. It then becomes important to bear in mind the precise object stated to have been designed by the conspiracy charged in the indictment, to-wit: the carrying of Morgan from the gaol of Ontario County, and to inquire what acts of the defendants tend to accomplish that object. It is not contended that any direct agency had been proved against any of the defendants, either in removing Morgan from gaol, or in his subsequent imprisonment. It has indeed been fully proved, that he was violently removed from the gaol at Canandaigua, and carried by night as far as the Ridge Road beyond Hanford's Landing, in Monroe county, and that he has not been heard of by his family or friends since that time. And although not so clearly proved, yet the evidence leaves but little room to doubt that Morgan was carried in the same unlawful manner to Lewiston, and from thence down the river to the burying ground near Fort Niagara-and from that period his fate has not been disclosed-whether living or dead, no one has informed us. But were either of the defendants engaged in his abduction? Some of them have proved conclusively, and others very satisfactorily, that at the time of Morgan's abduction, they were engaged in other places about their ordinary business, and it does not appear that they had subsequently engaged in it. Did then any of the acts or deliberations of the defendants satisfy the jury that they had entered into the conspiracy to remove Morgan from the gaol? If the jury, after carefully examining all these, should have any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants, they must acquit them; but if from all the evidence, you are satisfied that the defendants had been parties to the conspiracy charged in the indictment, or had participated in the unlawful abduction and imprisonment of Morgan, charged against them, then

you must fearlessly pronounce your verdict of guilty, however distressing the consequences may be to the defendants.

THE ACQUITTAL.

The Jury retired and after an hour's consultation returned a verdict of Not Guilty as to all of the defendants.

THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM DANDRIDGE EPES FOR THE MURDER OF FRANCIS ADOLPHUS MUIR, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA, 1848.

THE NARRATIVE.

On the morning of February 2, 1846, Francis Adolphus Muir, a young man of one of the leading families of the State of Virginia, rode on horseback to the plantation called Grampion Hills, belonging to his neighbor and friend, William Dandridge Epes, also a member of a Virginia family, numerous, wealthy and respectable. Five years before Muir, as the executor of his father's estate, had sold the plantation to Epes, who had given bonds and a deed of trust to secure part of the consideration. He had not been able to pay these as they fell due and had been more than once pressed by the executor, who finally informed him that unless paid by Christmas, 1845, the land would have to be sold under the deed of trust. But he was ill at Christmas time and he had put off the demand several times by promises of money, which he failed to obtain, and now Muir, being unwilling to grant any further forbearance, journeyed to the Epes house with the bonds in his pocket to demand payment and to inform the debtor that the next step would be the sale of the place by the Sheriff. Muir left his brother John's house with that statement, promising to return the next day. A servant on the plantation saw the debtor and creditor ride off together from the Epes residence, but Francis Adolphus Muir was never seen alive again. Diligent inquiries were made in the neighborhood, but to no purpose. A little later, John Muir received a letter from Petersburg, a town near by, signed F. Adolphus Muir, which said that he had collected the debt from Epes, and on his way from the plantation to Petersburg his horse had thrown him and a stranger passing by had taken