{"character_count": 1469, "word_count": 265, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9872000217437744], "ccnet_perplexity": [2146.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
LearHing a14ong ThiereS-Under this aead, the N. Y. Ereaiag Post gives us an unusual instance. It seems that prisoner in that city, under indictment for forgery, was asked in court by the clerk, whether he was ready for trial. To this the fellow replied, iaat Il the court would allow him the same privileges that they allowed to those who practice in that court, he w9uld consentchat the trial shonid go on. The recorder told him that he was entitled to the same privi- leges. He paid but little attention to cross questioning the witnesses, but when the re- corder asked him if he had any thing to say to the jury, he arose, and for the space of a quarter of an hour addressed the jury in a neat and pointed manner, which would have been credltable to one learned in the law He contended mainly that the indictment it. sell was defective, inasmuch as 1t charged him with an attempt to' commit a burglary ill the first degree, when-ia fact, there was no evi- dence to prove 1t, either of positive or cir cumstantial nature He defined burglary in the inst degree to be forcibIe entrance into dwelling house, and contended that when he was arrested, he had not obtained, nor had he the meansysto force an entrance into the house, and therefore the indictment could net he sustained. He commended this fact to the consideration of tie jury, and hoped they would act as became honest and intelligent jurors. The Pod fails to mention what dis position was made of the rogue.