New-York daily tribune., 1849-09-13
A.for-Dlnre Riot,
GENERAL SESSIONS B~or- Judge natr Ad-rmso r h'tt
WOO

6ESERAL SESSIONS Jass- p.tr. Ad-rnso P A'tir
saa wo,D
Yesterday was the DAY appointed for the COM
nencemeut Of the trials on indictments found those
implicated IN the Opera House Riot and accordingly the
Courtroom crowded almost 10 sufocsu0u with wit
ne.sss, criminals. and ookers-on
A. the opening o. the Court. Mr. James NJ Smith. on
behsif0f Mr. T. Juison. rose and. upon reading Of
,he necessary adavis made application 10 postpone the
. ofh. client upon the ground Of hs absence of tvo
witnesses b Per and Nose. II. Grnnel. fsq. and the
sickness Of Nj Thomas Warner. h. only counsel
The District Attorney. Mr. MeHeon assisted by Mr.
james r. Whiting and Jonas Phillips. stated 10 he
Court that tho frst iodictmen, charged jointly r. L
Jll.on Thomas Bennett james Matthews, Alexander
fIosack. Daniel Aiuanee. George Dousss. John Morris
Hugo Mclaughlin, Thomas Green, ana jane. N-il
et ihe commission oi not A. Asiof place in May as
~ occurrence which has hitherto been ansq srd snd un
discovered DO ine annas of the history oi h" civilized
world. Mr VI Neon opposed hie Wouuu oi postpone
meni the ground that the fna was hNed ~ remote
period from the time at which the indictment was found
laf nothing was sworn I'D upon me i.cr OF me alhY 20
warrant belief that NJ Waner was sick-and that Nr
Jlison had been allowed plenty Of lime TO prepare for
his Trial Nj. whiting On behalf OF The prosecution
d~-.t some length upon ih- enorm.tg Of the crime
charged The occasion of The massacre cf twenty i've per
postpone the trial because he adayiis made nsuc
hcIent 90 warrant me application
M Smith then replied mat inde relieuty % The aega
Ons charged he sihfavi, lhe -Nced ssie Of e puh
Doe mind n r~la Ion 20 The massacre was sufficient and a.
that Mr. Judsou should have fair and impartial
trail and that was ali they asked In he name Of common
u-uce
Mr McKeon replied hat n the -iponement OF one
case granted, tris allow ed, 10 would be
precedent for applications of the twenty and odd
-0ns now susweraDIe for the uisdcmeauor-hf NJ Jgd-
son xa- uat as other. were arrsgnef charge
of felony. additional io that " misiruetnor. that
nor Question t0 Involve mlch OF legal hrgument Mr
Ne K-nn added that he would present The
application for separate trial. JudsOu must hrst
.ser and Pied lo me Indictment Here the Count Or
Alderman Kelley then inquired whether Mr Judson had
.nbpouaed Mr Gnnuell Or Mr. PeIl and The District A.
4Hf fHfre Eva moi az ID A
Applications we're then made by different counsel for
those charged n the Indictment 10 have sep rate nas
Ar schoes On behalf Of James D N-i,i in last person
clargrd ia the indictment asAed s-pa tie triaL Nh
Bust-ed, on behalf Of George Doussss 'sed The same
privilege upon ground the deaf and
minor snd could not, aboTing under hose dsaigan-
age, have regular and favorable tfs impeaded with
Others. - he would by himself
Mr. @ ) Cornell demanded also separate trial, but
did not .t4ie any real cause fOr the application
Afer much Argumeut on both sides Judge Dsly de-
gered the opinion and decision ~ The Court follows
Dreisi0s # he Court tls Motion The application l.
twiOd Four Oi he defendants move for separate tras
and of those defendants In the event " s denial u
mat application move % postpone he case FOR the absence
of material witnesses The Grand Jury have included all
defendants u indictment with he view that they
should be Tried together for ohense he propney Of
.trs part of the history of common iransacOn and t0
enable he Jury 10 determine whether not existed they
should have detailed % them the 0i oil be parties a-
dclei for creating aud nanng not lfthe defendants
instead Of being tried together -h0u be- tried separately
DO would be necessary 20 repeat great portion 0the
testimony n each case which would lead 10 an unnece--
'Ay consumption ~ puDuc TINE and greatly increase the
reaI-nce 90 iurors, Witnesses Sc.
There therefore. the strongest ior trying al
i- defendants together and he Court should not gf.ns
separate tral unless 10 l. manifest that N may prejudice
The N particular defendant % try him ~ th the
II there B. reason 20 believe thata party cannot have
TAR lnai ming nR No case WIN na ~ ne others may
tend seriously 10 bis det1men he should have separate
trsl There Is nothing, however, the AFFIDAVIT u the
defendant Jud.on 10 Induce The Court 10 grant him sep
a. Nothing zppears from which tbs Court snt
inrf That his sn' would be affected in The slightest par
lclla by ifyns MIN 1nly TN ne rest Nor l. ne deal
u he defendant Doug or his extreue youth
reason for granting him separate trai Whatever
.lera0ns arise from his extreme youth may well be
id1ressed 10 one jury A. well a. 10 another
Tee m1l 20 put % the ri al must also BE- denied The
defendants have NOT shown due diligence. TIE irai 0
ls has been delayed fora long m- Indeed IL has
been delayed - long q. 10 1fofd ground for public com
plant s y-rJ fr-nl from The ordinary cIass Of Grim
la trals The Transaction Involved in it b. more -sp@
ci-ly Of public nature.
% was sci down. therefore A. ne bed ming Of he term
1r DAY, certain that ample time might 1- Afforded o.
parties o get ready and al psfues were notified thsi n
s0I.d BIZ promptly Proceeded With today Toe fefen-
dani, Jltson having .eci-d effort f1 get
ts witness ~tn due dii senc- u lo-e -nesses we're
rlt showed ttaf ~tne-ses are Material t- ha. noi
l sro.@d hat be- expects 0 prove By the
a. -sei % BE- ah.ent The All avf II heir m atrsty /.
n other respects detective E DOES comply with the
r@ re-pect i1 the opinion n coul-e lf would be
.,A--uf r he oo.for-r-rt II tt- mot rdfoary .it
90 civil court. a1d : eutIsd O bot Hite weight 10 an
.e..- IA thi. nsyulr!f1 Wg9s- t6e rs -. ,.lr-....
~ ~ numerous. here should be- good su5st.nua.
..esr.t- 49,. shie6 ir tt- orisee ~ ~ =. :
1- Court does Dot appear FOR uese reasons ile appi
| rsl0rs are cerel.
TIE Cers Of ih- Court Nr vsnderyoort inmedisieiy y
lpon ne rrs decision - ih- Court -d names o
me en prisoners nc cted FOR me purpose u ara knent
Iley a. appeared tlt four, " James M.fihes. JOhc
Morris I1omas Ois-n ald Hlgh McLa1shlin. and ihs
r-cogrxzrces ~ ne aier fJrf-ited Subsequently
noNeF-f, Green .nd hsuns~s appeared. The g-ner-
pleading Uss, Not Gully
ne Crz neHt proceedsd % es he pauei u the Jury
1l l yf4rf il ~ rl- Jury reference Instituted
" ~o ry-r. decider. oi The competency Of Juror.
llry we're, hy consent of both counsel Heury A. Gran
80 D-'l1 1pui, Tno we're Iuu ul-ii siely sworn in.
Tue lrsi Jlror called A fred Brush, .Oucning Who's
cpl lr'cf af.ef much Nglmen The tyer- decided TIA
~ "a o. improper pef-Ou or Juror he ground ina
~ supposed ~ an 1d ctmeui ls1 been found agsins
| yll-on' must be 1ecesssry implicated
A. ns stase of te pfo-e~dngs The COur al ned u
ihi. DAY A. N O'Clock
The audience arge .rd fhsir ati@otou 10 the pro
c-sr 90 fnf~nz-