Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1821-04-26
.Nsw. FORK, April Is.
THE PEOPLE, o.. ROBERT NJ. GOODWIN.
Indictment for Manstaughter.

The above case came on for trial on
Tuesday last in the Supreme Court,
now hnlding in this city. before his
hon. Judge Plat, when the following
Jurors were balIottrd and sworn, viz:
Charles B. varick. Michael House
worth, jun. Francis Thomas. Daniel
Hagerman. James Boardman, Silas
Lyon, Comfort Sands, Frederick
Knapp, Cow. s.. Bibby, Samuel Cox,
VIM. Coffin, Matthias Decker. There
have been few cases in the annals of
Jurisprudence which have excited a
greater degree Of public attention, or
in which the public at large seemed to
take deeper interest, than the one be-
fore us-and this may probably account
for the extreme difficulty the court met
with on the first day, 10 procuring a
panel of jurors who had not been con-
,ersant with all the circumstances at
tending this melancholy affair-and
| who mad not also formed a decided o.
pininn, as to tue guilt and innocence
Of the prisoner. 1t is Fact worthy to
he mentioned that do more than six
persons could be found among the pa
! mel OF Jurors, returned to try issues in
the Supreme Court, at the present
term, who did not declare, on oath,
| that they were acquainted with all the
particulars andw decidedly in favor
OF or opposed TO the prisoner--and
the sheriff, probably summoned sixty
'aiesmen before they could obtain a
number disinterested, to complete the
panel.
The indictment charged the prisoner
with having, on the sIst Dec. 1919,
violently assaulted one James Slough
ton, aud in the fury of his mind, Civ
ing him a IN ,rtal wound with dagger
| on the left side, between the eighth and
ninth ribs, of the depth of eight inches.
and of the breadth of one inch, OF which
wound the said James Stoughton i'm
mediately died.-To this indictment
the defendant pleaded not guilty. and
was tried before the late Mayor, in the
Court OF Sessions, in March term,
1890; but inasmuch as the testimony
then delivered was far from being con-
elusive, the jury were unable TO agree
upon a verdict Of guilty or not guilty, 4
were, after being kept together about
six days, discharged by the Court and
q new trial awarded. TO this decision
of the Court, the defendant appealed
to the Supreme Court, alIedging that
by virtue Of an article in the COnstitu.
ton of the U. States, which declared
that no person should be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb for the same
offence, he was now entitled to his ac-
quittal. as new trial would be at di.
rect variance with that article. The
defendant had been heretofore in close
custody, but, after the appeal, was Ii.
berated Oh bail !; and at the last Jan,
term the Judges of the Supreme Cour'
were unanimously of opinion that the
defendant should be again put on his
trial, as there had been no verdict rem
dered by the jury /; and consequently
no judgment upon which the defendant
could grounda plea of former acquittal
A renirc was awarded to the present
sitiiuss, where nearly the same testi
mony was delivered as that given on
the former trial. 1t would require
more room to detail the evidence a
large, than can be well afforded at thi.
time, but we shall briefly recapituIat'