COUNSEL.-The last of March?

WITNESS.-About the 20th or 22d; but that is a mere guess. COUNSEL. You say that with all your influence, and all your exertions, you were unable to find out where the horse was?

WITNESS.-I was.

COUNSEL. Did you ever learn from anybody that he was out out of the county?

WITNESS.-Well, I should say

the county.

COUNSEL.-Who told you so?

that I had heard he was out of

WITNESS.-Now, that I do not remember.

COUNSEL.-Did you know that Kruger had been engaged in helping to get the horse off?

WITNESS.-Not at that time.

COUNSEL.-When did you first learn that?

WITNESS.-It would be impossible for me to say. It was a considerable time after

COUNSEL, (interrupting.)-Was it before the indictment was found?

WITNESS.-It was before the indictment was found that the horse was delivered to me.

COUNSEL.-Was it after the complaint was made?

WITNESS.-I will not undertake to say. I know it was some time after I had been making efforts to get the horse.

COUNSEL.-There was a complaint made before Justice Osborne in February. Was it after that?

WITNESS.-No; I think it was before that time, that I knew Kruger had had something to do with it.

COUNSEL.-Who told you?

WITNESS.-I cannot say. I should think the information came from some one in my own office.

COUNSEL.-How early did you commence your exertions to find the horse?

WITNESS.-On the day the sureties justified.

COUNSEL.-Who did you apply to?

WITNESS.-Mr. Collins.

COUNSEL.-Any one else?

WITNESS.-Not at that time.

COUNSEL.-Did you tell Mr. Collins that if he did not produce the horse, you would make an application to the Court for an attachment for contempt?

WITNESS.-No, sir; I did not.

COUNSEL.-Did you ever tell him that he was subject to such an attachment, for the way in which he was acting?

WITNESS.-No; I do not think I did. I told him I would abandon his business, and that of his wife, unless the horse was deliv

ered up.

COUNSEL.-Was any application ever made to the Court, to punish the parties for contempt of its process?

WITNESS. No, sir.

Re-examined by MR. STOUGHTON :—

COUNSEL.-When was this horse delivered up? I believe the indictment was found on the 23d of March.

WITNESS.—I know it was before the finding of the indictment. MR. STOUGHTON, (to the Court.)—That is our case.

MR. WHITING, (to the witness.)-You learned from your office that Kruger had taken away the horse?

WITNESS.-Yes, sir.

COUNSEL.-How long afterwards was it? How many days? WITNESS.-I should think it was a week-or two or three

weeks.

The witness withdrew.

MR. STOUGHTON.-I take it, my learned friend will not press for a conviction on any case like this.

MR. WHITING.-I think the jury ought to be a little enlightened

on this subject, especially from the character of the opening on the part of the defence.

Mr. STOUGHTON accordingly proceeded to sum up the case for the defendant, as follows:-

GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:-I will trouble you for but a very few minutes with what I have to say in reference to this case. I think you already appreciate precisely what it is. I do not suppose that any suggestions from counsel, or any labored summing up, can alter the case in your minds, or in the mind of any person. There is no conflict of evidence; the testimony is all one way. The defendant here is indicted for this, that having certain papers in his possession, which, as Deputy Sheriff, required him to go and take possession of a horse, the alleged property of the plaintiff in the suit, he went and took possession of the horse, willfully intending, and deliberately purposing, that that horse should not in any event be delivered over to the defendant in the case. Mr. Jones, the defendant in that suit, saw fit to give a bond under the statute, which may be done within three days; and having done so, it is said that the Sheriff, by his own deliberate act and malfeasance, had the horse put out of the way willfully; so that when the bond was given that horse was not forthcoming. That is the substance of the charge. The act under which this suit was commenced was this:-by our Code, when Mr. Collins and his wife sought to get possession of the property, they were bound by a surety, that if it turned out on the trial, that they were not entitled to the property, the property, or damages equivalent to him, was to be given back. Upon the execution of those papers, it is the duty of the Sheriff, upon the papers being put into his hands, to go and take the horse and hold him; and if the defendant makes an undertaking, and the sureties on his bond justify, then in that event the Sheriff must deliver the horse up to him. Now, if the Deputy Sheriff willfully and purposely neglected and omitted to deliver that horse back to the defendant, upon the giving of that

bond, then he is guilty. And if he did not willfully and deliberately act thus, but with intent that he (Jones) should get the horse back in his possession, then he is not guilty. The statute under which the Deputy Sheriff is indicted is this:

(Mr. Stoughton then read the statute.)

This Deputy Sheriff, a man hitherto of irreproachable character -irreproachable not only in his character as an officer, but in his character as a man-is indicted; he is pursued here; and really it turns out, upon the testimony, and I do not think there is any conflict on that point at all, that at the time he went to serve these papers, and get possession of this horse, he was followed by a person who was employed by the plaintiff to go there; that person has a bridle under his coat; and he has instructions from the plaintiff, that the moment that horse is unlocked from the stall, he is to take him and ride him away, in defiance of the Deputy Sheriff, without his knowledge, and without his consent. The Deputy Sheriff goes there, in the execution and discharge of his duty; he goes with these papers; he goes into the back part of that stable; the horse is pointed out to him; he goes into the front part of the stable, near the office; he tells the person in charge that the proprietor is wanted; the proprietor presents himself; he tells him that he wants that horse; he serves the papers; and a man is sent to unlock the stall, and take out the horse; the stall is out of sight of these parties; the horse is brought out, but the Deputy Sheriff has his back to him; he is kept purposely engaged in conversation, that his attention may not be turned that way; the horse is taken out on the street, and this person, the horse never having been in the possession of Carlin at all, jumps on his back, and rides off

with him. From that time, Carlin did not employ his time otherwise than to have that horse properly delivered. It is something like two months before he can find him; and then how does he get him?

All his individual efforts to find him were unavailing. Ex-Judge Beebe, exercising that professional influence over this Mr. Collins and his wife, which lawyers may exercise over their clients, finally induces him, (Collins,) upon the representation of the position that Carlin has got into by this wrong act of Collins, to bring the horse into Judge Beebe's stable; and there he is taken down, and put in the stable, and delivered to Carlin.

It seems to me, that if there was a plain case, about which there could be no controversy, it is this; and it seems to me that the idea of suggesting that Carlin has been guilty of any wrong, or any malfeasance, is so absurd, as to justify you in deciding the case without leaving your seats. Who is Mr. Jones? A gentleman of whom I know but little. He goes upon the stand; he tells you his narrative. Undoubtedly he thinks he has been a sufferer from the conduct of Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins reciprocates, and thinks he has been a severer sufferer-for it turns out that his wife, who was the owner of this horse, has lost him forever. Collins, induced by the Sheriff, delivers him up, and, of course, makes a sacrifice thereby; because if he wins his suit even, Jones has only to pay damages to the value of that horse. Now, what does Jones do? He tells you a fact which shows the good faith of Carlin at the outset. It was this-He says that on the very day he got this out, he met Carlin in Wall-street; that he had a conversation with him in Wallstreet; that Carlin declared he was not to be humbugged; that that horse was to be put back before that suit was ended. Mr. Jones, himself, by his testimony, shows that Carlin, from the time that horse was taken from him, in the way I have described, was absolutely making every effort in his power to get him; and that he was on his way to Judge Beebe's office, indignant that that trick had been played upon him. “That suit," said he, “shall not be discontinued till that horse is returned to that stable." Now, what was meant by that? Mr. Jones knew perfectly well what was meant by it. He had had some experience in the matter. Mr. Forman tells you that Jones said, "That suit must not be discon