The New York herald., 1851-09-10
Court of Oyer and rermincr.
Before Chief Justice Edmonds and Aldermen Kelly and


CHARGES OF MURDER-AkRAIoNMgyr OF PRISONERS.
err e-.d.oins LeFsz was arrsignsd for the murder
OF Michael Foster policeman Of the Fourth ward by
stabtng him in the abdomen with koii on the "a Of
August lat The prisones pleaded not Auilty and his
trial was set down for Monday next
ames Srteez wss arragned for the murder Of Edward
smith by stabhing him in the groin with kuiie on the
lun 81 august last IN the Second ward The prisoner
plesded not guilty, and his trial set dowa for next
Thursday week.
Oo G,unz,g Of the Tenth ward was arrsgued for the
murder OF Vtctorine drupzg his wife by administering
to her quantity Of arsenic The prisoner psaded not
guilty and bis trial set down for next Thursday
week.
The Ccse If Henry Care.-The argument motion
for lev trial tie ground Of rregularty the part
Of the officer who had the jury in charge proceeded
with The District Attorney read the aifidavts of
several Of the Jurors denying that their verdict had
been influenced by The nicaton made to them by
the effcsr Mr. Edwia D. Ayers deposed that sug1es-
state, or some book containing the law Of manslaugh
ter and that he A. thersupon requested the oicsr
70 ask tie court to send the jury the statute that the
ofcer made no reply, but shortly afterwards returned
and stated to oeponent n the that Judge Eimonds
SAID "they had noting to do with manslaugh.er." "
This was Dunicated by Mr. Ayres the rest of the
jury and the deponent further says that this com
nicsn1n had no influences Whatever on his verdict,
akd that nothing more was raid BY the officer. Mr..
Ayrss also states that when Mr. Clinton the prisoner
counsel apple to him to make sfhdsvt IN this
ter, he declined Mr.. Clinton urged him to do So saying
it vas matter Of FORM but deponent in that affidavit
did not intend to convey different impression to the
facts contained his present deposition The affidavit
Of Michael McKeon borstes that OF Mr. Ayres and
further states tha. the jury all convinced OF
guilt Of the prisoner; and that of them, David
Wyatt only objected to rendering the verdict upon the
ground that be aid lot wish to hang the man.
The Judge observed that ures Of late very much
inclined 20 bring in verdicts Of mansaughtey
where they have nothing to do with manslaughter lie
had taxed bis memory, and could not call to mind any
geh mtsssgc coming frcm the jury II very probable
that he the Juege) may have made the remark in the
case OF Carmel TO some person In court that the jury
had Ecthirgto do with manslaughter but he certainly
made it with the rt-ntion that IL should be CON
lie "a
tner the inpropriey ON the par, Of the oicer is su
cient to warrant new trial.
Hr H. l.. Clinton then proceeded to contend that the
coneuct ei Tie oficer (who Was policeman detailed by
tie laJo 20 act deputy to Nj Henry Bsr.hof the
principal hcr IN charge OF the jury irre 1ar
and ieea and sufficient 10 enti.le The prisoner to new
trial. and u at unicaticn sh oud be
jury except by tbs Court and that that should be in
Court and in pres.nce Of the counsel in the caue.
The ollowD the p9uts relied upon by defsndant's
ticn made to the Jury by the officer to the mild
est term irregulary which vitiates the verdict The
principle Laid down by cLisi Justice Shaw, in n
koby, IL Pick 49o runs through all the atjudicited
to wit: whore ie TrsSularty which may
ale the impartisy of the proceediogsas where the
jury have properly separated themselves had
rlupostor not authorized there inasnuch there
DE certainty that the verdict has nc. been iin
properly Influenced the proper and appropriate mode Of
Correction on relief is by updoig Wha is improperly
ana may have been eorEuptly done lJlysr Trustees
d Springfield. Cosan IA. Best VI Fowler Co van,
So2 Com VS., Green IL Mass 53l seresnt vs Roberts,
] Pick 3oi Com. vs. Roby, y Pick 4st The atrdi-
Us OF The jurors In this clearly smisble but
they not be used TO peech be verdict or impute
to hemselyes personal misconduct 70 show what their
impressions were that tEey INTENDED msthiny df
fsieIt from what they found ia other words, he de-
t. raious Of the Juiy upao the laid down by tue
Count GEd the evidence lgtimatey and properly before
them cannot he shosn cf heir sfidavits St ~
DeEnsson. Com lt6 2!l Jackfon vs. Dickinson Is
ohIs 90 sc Sc 70 prove the condus: of the party.
lhichies VI. Ho,bsOok, sergt RGEl ass, sc Phe
uf1avts competent here te show mistake that
they rDiled upon point OF Law. sergt. vs. Denus
sD. CosGn, SayIe IS Also to show the mscontu; ::
of tie ofacer EieLie vs. Holorcok There is no
ttcriiy sAtsnt that the AFFIDAVIT of Jurors
not le u..i chow the misconduct OF another party
bar Clinton had not concluded his argument at the
IiAirg q tie Court.