The republic., 1851-09-03
Local Matters.


material to this motion, and that he declined doing
so Therefore, they asked that he be called to the
stand and examined orally.
Mr.. Fendall asked that the defence be required
to state upon oath what they expect to prove by
Mr.. Henshaw.
The Court said that the prisoner could not be
supposed to know personally the subject matter OF
what occurred doors, and could not be required
to swear to what it was impossible for HIM to
know.
| Mr.. Morgan then read what he supposed would
| be the probable statement which Mr.. Henshaw
would make, If required by the court to do The
| statement was, that on one occasion when Mr..
| Henshaw visited the jury roon juror (Mann)
handed him the Baltimore Clipper, and asked was
| it proper that newspapers containing reflections
| upon jurors should be allowed to be read by the
| jury. That Henshaw read the paper, and Of
the opinion that the article in the paper i'm
proper to be read by the jury, though he does not
now remembeE the purport OF the matter In the
Mr. Fendall objected TO this statement. even if
| made, as not being proper to be received
lst. That the affidavit if made, would only set
| forth the declarations Of Juror (Mann) to i'm
| peach his own verdict.
3D. That the particular thing set forth is not
| fact but simply Mr.. Henshaw's opinion Of what
was in the paper, and Mr.. -Henshaw's opinion was
| no better than any other PERSONS opinion.
Mr.. Bradley replied; and, after argument, il was
concluded to call Mr.. Henshaw to the stand and
| examine him orally.
Mr.. Morgan then read, in support of the six
sons heretofore published) for trial, the afi
davits of Richard Brooks, Mrs. Wardell Miss Irene
| Wardell, Mrs. Harriet Kidwell Mrs. Sally Rudd,
(al of which have been heretofore published,) and
the following, which have been filed:
DIsrRIcT OF COLUMBIA, ,o vii.
| Warrington C5unty
| Personally appeared before me- the subscriber,
a Justice of the peace in and for the county and
district aforesaid, Mrs. Ophelia Guyton, and made
oath, &C., that she has known Mrs. Wood, the
mother of John Day, since about last March, and
that she has since that time seen her frequently,
| and has always since her acquaintance with Mrs.
| Wood, regarded her person of a weak and dis
| eased mind; che has often heard Mrs. Woods
neighbor say she not right in her mind at
times. Mrs. Wood is not calculating, keen or
sensible woman. This deponent has lived in the
same neighborhood with Mrs. Wood until the last
sworn before C. ASHFORD, j. P.
Mrs Margaret Hurdle deposed that she has
known Mrs. Wood (mother of John Day) since
the 18th of May last, and that ever since that time
she believes her mind to have been diseased; her
conduct during this time has been very irrational,
and her conversations exhibited wildness and in
sanity; any trouble would entirely confuse and
disorder her mind. This deponent has been with her
frequently since the 18th of May last, and thus has
had opportunities OF observing her. Her reputation
amongst her neighbors s that her mind is weak
and extremely disordered; indeed all of her neigh
bors with whom this deponent has convcrsed con-
cerning Mrs. Wood, agree with this deponent in
1 i
deponent has lived in the same neighborhood with
| Mrs. Wood until within the last week or two
Mrs. Wood having about that time moved from her
old place of residence.
| dIfred Hurdle, husband OF the above deponent,
makes affidavit that the facts set forth in the aff-
davt of his wife are true, far as his personal
ledge of Mrs. Wood has extended.
| Mrs Ann Dobie's affidavit was to the effect ]
| have known Mrs. Wood, (formerly Mrs. Day,)
the mother of John Day, for many years, and have
always regarded her as very weak minded wo-
man. At times have seen her very much ex-
cited more especially in time Of trouble when she
| would be a great deal worse than ordinary oc-
casions. On such occasions she has frequently
come to my house in much Distress declaring that
she could not stay at home, and that che must be
all the time travelling; her mind seemed to be af-
fectad, and she required constant attention. The
sickness of any of her children would 80 affect her
to require for her as much attention as the sick.
have known her ever since she was child, and
have been intimate with her.
John n. Rtidd, of Alexandria, deposed have
known Mrs. Wood, Formerly Mrs. Day,) the
mother Of John Day, for about thirty years. and it
he's always been my opinion that she is woman
of very weak mind, easily thrown off its balance.
The least excitement would always affect her mind
very materially, much more 80 than it would ordi-
narily affect person. The same cause that would
affect her to require for her the and at
tenton of her friends, would be treated lightly by
most persons. She was much more easily affected
than any of her sisters. | could not say that in
such cases of excitement she was crazy or insane,
| q person possessing a we'll balanced mind.
The affidavit of Thomas c. Howell. in which he
deposed that he had known Richard Brooks for fif-
teen years, and never, prior TO the time when il
was reported be was going to make an affidavit in
this case, heard his reputation for truth and vera
city auestoned; and the deponent would believe
| him, the said Brooks, on his oath.
In further support Of the motion, and in obedience
to the summons Of the coart, the defence called TO
the stand
Joslua l.. Hensha,o s,corn.a-I went up every day
to the jury room while the jury was celebrating
their verdict. / was sent up to ascertain if they
had agreed on their verdict
Question by Mr. Bradley.-State what passed while
yau we're there and while the jury were in their room
before they rendered their verdict, other than what
| related to the subject upon which you were sent
there.
Mr. Fendall objected to the witness giving the
statements of the jurors
Mr.. Bradley said he did not design asking the
witness to repeat any statement made to him by a
Juror to the grounds upon which he found his
verdict; to ask any question as to any fact com
municated to him by juror which would tend TO
criminnte the Juror, make him liable to censure.
But he did intend asking questions which would so
to show that improper influences were attempted
to be exercised to induce the jurors to agree upon
their verdict. He contended that what juror said
and did, while the jury were together celebrating
upon their verdict in relation to the trial, was pro-
per to be given in evidence on this motion. Cited
Evanss Practise, 32f; Sd Gil and Johnson, 1888;
I'd Chittys Reports, 26S.
and intention of the evidence was to impeach the
verdict of the juror. Could the declarations of a
Juror be given in evidence to impeach his own ver-
dict? Cited Conn. Reports
He maintained that there no difference be-
tween allowing juror to testify to his miscon-
duct and allowing another person to prove that the
juror said and 90, mpeaching his own verdict.
If Mr. Henshaw testify to what Mann said, why
not allow Mann to prove 1t himself Phe juror could
not himself impeach his verdict; could he do so by
making a statement to Mr. Henshaw. He cited
Blackwell (Indiana) Reports 454
MIR. Bradley 70 lowed in support Of his PROPOSE
| ton.
The Court. ruled that the witness should testify
to all that he heard said, and oil that he saw done
while in the jury-room.
Mr.. Henshatp resumed Iwentup to the jury room
after the day when they had been poed ascertain
if they had agreed. When went up on such occa-
sions called them together and made the communi-
cations was directed by the Court; went up that
day and went into one OF the jury rooms. Mann was
sitting in the window. ] told him TO come into the
room with the others, that had communication to
make to them from the court. He said, " Mr..
Henshaw, do you think it right or proper that pa
- .,.sx =.