Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
Full Title
The Great Mollie Maguire trials : in Carbon and Schuylkill counties, Pa., brief reference to such trials, and arguments of Gen. Charles Albright and Hon. F.W. Hughes, in the case of the commonwealth vs. James Carroll, James Roarity, Hugh McGehan and James Boyle, indicted for the murder of Benjamin F. Yost, chief of police of and at Tamaqua, July 6, 1876, in the Oyer and terminer of Schuylkill County.
Author
Albright, Charles. Carroll, James. Roarty, James. McGehan, Hugh. Boyle, James.
Date Added
11 January 2014
Language
English
Publish Date
1876
Publisher
Pottsville : Chronicle Book and Job Rooms
Source
ACHS Historic Papers Molly Maguires
Topic
Molly Maguires (Organization). Coal miners > Pennsylvania. Irish > Pennsylvania. Carroll, James, > d. 1877 > Trials, litigation, etc. Yost, Benjamin F., > d.1875 Trials (Murder) > Pennsylvania > Schuylkill County.
About
More Details Permanent Link
Disclaimers
Disclaimer of Liability Disclaimer of Endorsement
OCR
23
should go back to the house they would multiply that witness
against them by three ; there would be three to one to recognize and
identify them. McGehan had sagacity enough to comprehend this,
The hidden language of McGehan was, excuse us, we do not want
‘to go and exhibit ourselves to Mary Breslin; we do not want to go
and show ourselves to honest old Timothy Breslin. We do not
‘want your testimony strengthened as to our retreat from the mid-
might murder. We are thirsty but we do not mean to go back this
short distance to Timothy Breslin’s house to get a drink. We
would rather go home thirsty than go back to Breslin’s. . That risk
and hazard they would not run.
They well knew the power of affirmative testimony. Hugh Mc-
Gehan understood that if necessary there was to be an alibi in this
case and he knew if they were to run the gauntlet of the old Bres-
lin eyes and submit themselves toethe gaze of Mary and Timothy
Breslin that an alibi would not weigh much in this Court, and so
‘they declined Bob Breslin’s invitation to return to the house fora
drink, But did Robert Breslin see them? Can there-be any ques-
‘tion about it? There is no attempt to deny it. But there is an
attempt made to parry the force of the blow and to indirectly im-
peach Robert Breslin.
William Fitzpatrick is the instrument selected for this work, but
whatever his intentions were, he corroborates and confirms Robert
Breslin. He confirms everything that occurred upon the porch of
Reed’s hotel, to which Breslin swore. Breslin says he left Reed’s
‘and had about one-half mile to go and that he got to his home at
thalf-past four o’clock, shortly before the whistle blew, and Fitzpat-
rick says he got to his home at five or nearly five o’clock, and just
as he was approaching it the whistle blew. He did not know ex-
actly when Robert Breslin left; Fitzpatrick went in one direction,
Breslin in another. One had a mile to go, the other a half or there-
abouts. There is no trouble about: reconciling this testimony—it
‘harmonizes and fits. You know that it did not take him an hour
or half an hour, to walk a mile in the early freshness of that morn-
ing, so that there is absolute corroboration with the testimony which
is brought here to impeach him. McGehan reached home at six
‘O'clock or thereabouts, and his boarding mistress, Mrs. Burns, says
that he left the evening before; she saw him go; it was not dark,
and the next morning she unlocked the door for him and he came
an. Pat Breslin is to disprove this, but fails entirely. He says he
does not know whether McGehan was there that night or not. In
‘the Morning after Mrs. Burns got up Breslin saw him put on his
boots; but he had two pairs; who says that McGehan was home
that night?
Mr. Ryon informed you in his opening speech that before the
<ase was concluded they would put John Burns upon the stand and