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
30
t
. o the northeas
to the railroad. He states that Kerrigan turned at Duffy turne
corner of Lebo’s house and stood on that corny he wemetery 3 tat
to the left, and went up Broad street tower at the light, an tnt
Yost crossed the street and started to PA of the road an :
then McCarron was standing in the mids 4 e According to th
Yost was shot immediately after he saw a 1 : “ave said any thing
| testimony of all the witnesses in this case W N ted to put out at
upon that subject, Yost was shot as he atte npr the murder m st
light, so that, if the statement of Duffy be cor tant of time tha is
have been committed almost at the very a t McCarron tells :
swears he saw Yost approch the Jamp-post ; saan to have been ° :
that it was a physical impossibility for ane store you see t i.
Lebo’s corner without being seen by him. waucl. He roves
if James-Duffy proves anything he proves f° aevertain tie whe
that James Kerrigan was in a certain place at have become vs
he could not have committed this crime. We vith which alib!
acquainted in this community with the facility \ ted whiclt ’
can be manufactured; but no alibi can be preser tne, and James
prove that a man could be in two places at the Soe use, and at the
Kerrigan could not be-on the corner of Leboe lamp-post where:
same time be under the shade of the trees at the e there is nO.
Yost received his mortal wound. In all this evident that kille
a particle of proof that James Kerrigan fired the dition to fire the
this brave policeman ; Kerrigan was not in a con in this case
shot. Somebody else did it, and all the testimony J refore dis
proves it. That part of the promise of the defence | ead nothing
solved before truth, as mist does before the morning “a cir unfulfille
remains for: you to consider upon this point but th
promise.
. erriga?
You have been told and you will be told again that Smplict
connot be believed, because he is an accomplice. -aved, the Jaw
Were not competent witnesses and could not be bee eek. But
would say so and it would be written upon our statute mplice AY
the law does not say that, The law says that an aCe says, 9
testify, aud that a jury may believe what that accomp slices could
matter how deeply dyed in crime he may be. If accom y nes would
not and should not be believed by juries, thousands of cri ened ove!
escape detection and criminals punishment, It has happ of crim!
and over again in the history of criminals, and in the history vict ba
nal jurisprudence that the only means left by which to co complic
m:n was to make use ofthe accomplices, and when an ac i
has told a probable story
i him,
the jury may and ought to believe
ani may convict upon that evidence.
. . . cases
As far as James Kerrigan is concerned as a witness in te nec
he conceals nothing. He tells you frankly and freely his uilty °
tio in these crimes. He tells you that which makes him §