Oliver vs. Kauffman, Weakley and Breckbill

The case of Oliver vs. Kauffman, Weakley and Breckbill, of this county, on trial in the U.S. Court for the Easter District of Pennsylvania, for the alleged aiding in the escape of fugitive slaves belonging to the plaintiffs, residing in Maryland, terminated on Thursday last. The jury was unable to agree and were discharged. The council in the case were [illegible] B. Penrose and [illegible] M. Watts, esqrs. For the defendants. The city papers give the [illegible] [illegible] particulars of the trial, which excited much interest:
The address of Mr. Stevens to the jury was of a strong anti-slavery character. He encouraged the slave to [illegible] from his master, and justified, those who assist in secreting him. His address was a splendid effort of bitter [illegible] [illegible]. He denounced the compromise of the constitution as hateful compromises of the Constitution,” and seemed to [illegible] [illegible] [illegible] a “higher law,” to be observed and regarded by our citizens.
[illegible] [illegible], Esq. in his argument, noticed some of the expressions of Mr. Stevens, and although on the same side of the case said that the expression of “hateful compromises of the Constitution,” fell [illegible] upon his ear
[illegible] [illegible] made a very able written charge to the Jury deprecating in the terms, the [illegible] spirit that would array [illegible]sell [illegible] the Constitution and the laws of the [illegible]. He did not [illegible] with those who [illegible] knowledge [illegible] [illegible] and spoke with [illegible] [illegible] patriotism of the glorious, [illegible] [illegible] what, the American people[illegible] as under [illegible] they now enjoy so much prosperity and happiness. He [illegible] sympathy or feeling in [illegible] [illegible] [illegible] [illegible] we [illegible] of that instrument the [illegible] [illegible] the Constitution.
A correspondent of the Philadelphia Sun asserts, however, that the report of Mr. Stevens speech is incorrect in all the papers, and that he did no use the terms ascribed to him [illegible] to the compromises of the Constitution.” On Friday morning, the jury after being out all night came into Court and stated that they had not been able to agree upon a verdict.
Judge [illegible] remarked that he was very sorry for it, and said, that he thought he would have to send them back to their room again. He did not wish, to punish a portion of the jury for what might be considered the fault of another [illegible]. This course had more than one [illegible] [illegible] where it had been suppressed [illegible] verdict could have been agreed upon. [illegible] N. Palmer, one of the jurors, [illegible] and said, that every effort had been made during this time they had been out, to form a verdict but without success, and he felt certain that no verdict could be arrived at. There were gentlemen upon the jury who had their conscientious scruples and who could not agree to a verdict without violating their consciences, or virtually be guilty of perjury. He was satisfied they could not agree.
Judge [illegible] said he did not like to establish a [illegible] for discharging a jury, without holding them together for a greater length of time, but at the same time he did not wish to force gentlemen to violate their consciences or their oaths. The case was one, which might admit of a difference of opinion/ He would therefore discharge them from the further consideration of the case and leave it to another jury to decide the matter.
The jury were accordingly discharged. The papers report that they stood [illegible] for finding a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and two against it. We learn from persons who were present, however, that the jury stood nine to three. Mr. [illegible], the spokesman of the jury, is a prominent democrat of Schuylkill county.