The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-03-02
superior Court.
Before Hon Judge Borworth.
THE WASHINGTON PARADE GROUND hFF.


Before Hon Judge Bosworth.
TIE WASHINGTON PARADE GROUND AFFAIR.
NAIRArIEL WILLIS vs. iDwfN FoaaEsr.
MARCH - This case, which was en- action for assault
aid battery called on, and both parties answered
ready IL VIII be recolected that IL partly .ie1 be
fore and was withorswp when tue eefenep -, opened
There was q formidable array Of counsel the part
ot the paintif--Msrsrs. A L. Jordan j. Cutting,
Edward Sanford, and FaEcher Fer the defendant,
Msssrs John Van Buten Robinson, sud Ssdgwick
The jury were called and some challenges w5Te exer-
oised by counsel for psaintin and deienisot
Jas. CLARK, juror. was challenged by Mr.. Van Buren,
for principal cause On being interrogsted to ais iadf
ference he said be nsd heard OF the had expressed
opinion but not such would render him in capable
juror does not know either of the partits knowe
Dir Wits by sight should not hsvs known Mr. Forrest
only he pom ted out TO him formed and pressed
an opinion when the transact "a. occurred bu. my mi I'D
IL at present open ani feel could fad verdict the
evidence.
To the Court Il 30 entertain the same opinion
now that formed then.
Mr. Van buren, submitted that there was sufficient
ground Tor chsilenge for principal cause
&r Clark have no wish Co serve on the jury am
gentleman. sir, and no money would purchase M.
Tho Court There IS no imputaJion you.
Er. Stamford contendst that the juro. was not dis
qualified
mr. Clark ia answer to the Court ssid he had no pre-
uoics against or the other but he would wish 20 be
excused.
tbs Court ruled that principal Gauss was not shown
hr. Van Buren then challenged DR. Cla:s for faror,
81 D ctjleo Tor ,siers.
Mr. Joidan, MIR. Cutting and Mr. SANFORD urged that
the challergs too late vhen the Court had rulel
The Court said the chasngs Tor principal oau,e,
and that tbs challenge tor favor was now quite cope
tent.
Nc Van Buren, said Ii appeared very remarkable tina.
there should be such effort 10 get this ytcus- juror
on the trial OF the One would think that the
plain til would be desrous OF having fair tIal and
until the defendant had got through his evidences a to
the bias and unhtness q the juror was impossible for
the counsel or the Court to know how ne ttsuds He
seys he is an honest juror and money cot ID bay him
and thstf yerr credsbe to him He admits he formed
an opinion and i WI be for the trers 70 judge from his
own statement-his nauner--his copdIcs-his appear.
aDce-aEd IL from s those the trers believe that he Is
prejuciced, they will attach eons Importance TO the
jurors eenstvenass when challenged and exclude him
Mr. JORDAN submitted that the counsel should present
to the court the eot that he Intends to prove and
ground. Ct their challenge for favor
The Court remarked that IT'S decision the former
challenge did not decide the present question
Mr. ssudtsrd was proceeding to speak, when Mr. Van
Buren, to o point of order He did physical
grounds, for u he expected to reply " the observe
tons OF suoh array Of council when they discuss the
question sitter the Court had decided it. 1t would De too
much.
Er saEdford was very glad to hear tia. the gentleman
deerAined Try this in order and they would
held him 20 that declaration,
Henry BARNARD and Patrick Crow Gurors) were then
sworn IS iIiers
III Van Bursn swsa. Mr. Clark
Mr. CLARK begged TO bs excused from serving; some
imPutaicu has been thrown out and call Court
TO protect ne, or LII protect myself.
Mr Van Buren-That's ri ut Mr.. Clark the Court
will protect you o. you can protect yourself.
hir Clark was then worn and exaniGed by Mr. Van
Buren, bad no recollection Of the other trial; what
alluded to the account Of the assault and battery
which appeared in the HERALD. Q.-Kas thai account
upiayorabIe TO Mr. FoEress7 A-No sir, considered
not
Mr. Sanford osjcc.ed'to tie question. The article
ehouid be producec.
The Court ruled ssaiD.t the question, ard ar Van
Buren, excepted
mir Clark continued-I did not make any note Of
talking Of the transaction more than once ON
unfayorsbls to Mr. Forrest A-Fsyor.ble; tho
remgk / made WAS, that 1t served Mr. Wiln
right If It was just that il he had been guilty
Ct teduciEg Mr. FORESTS wife Q-Whst your opin-
ion as 10 his guilt or il rCceIce OF the charge?
Mr.. EGndford objected
The Court said his opinion was not competent.
Mr. Van Buren, said, either he tbs court misunder-
stood the issue they were trying. They were inves
eating the bias Of the juror
Buren, excepted.
Q-what have you said as to Mr. Willis being guilty
or not Objected to and oyerruled. Q-Hsveyou been
in disc ussions with friends OF Mr. Forrest A
Not in reference TO this care. Q.-Havs you spoken
against Mr. Forrest with reference to another case that
has recently been tried!
Objected t. everrul.d ard exception taken by defend
ants counsel.
Q-po you know such place a. Attwooa's public
house? Ayes visit there sometimes; my oocupa.
ton is engraving and printing; may have mentioned
1t Attwoods that was summoned juror 10 this csse
only there twice since was msaed; was there
Saturday and yesterday knew from the papers that
this would be called on; don't recoec that this
case was spoken Of yererdsy; Mr.. Atwood was there
and hatcher, whese name 90 not know the clerks
name is Diumgould; l was born In Ireland ana
an here since wss thirteen years Of age; | was
our client l not irri.ated now have got over
that; raid, little while ago, that would protect my
you n.nuated that bfibcd By The Other party to
get on the jury.
q -Has the impression produced By that charge
Alt has go far as any prejudice against you snd
your client n th, case; think could try the
according TO the testimony asf never had heard OF
the case have not conyersed about thi, at any other
public hcu,e; was ut another public house IN Division
street With Mr. Gardiner; this not spoken Of
there; read the account OF the transaction Has
the Of iDien yoa thp formed changed Al thoashtit
strange that Mr.. Forrest did not sus Mr.. Willis O.
Then on think that Mr. FORFEIT did not believe the
ruled out. Q-Hew DO you know that he did not
Lin Al draw my inference from the evidence on
the trial between Mr. and Mrs forrest. Q-What Is
the inference you draw Objected to- and ruled out
Mr.. Sanford and Mr.. Ven Buren, having addressed
be ,rer, the Court charged them as g thsir duty
The ritrs found that Hr Clark did not stand iudif
trent and another juror-Mr d. Comes-wm then
.wo,n, aud the jury stood thus: -
nsnIy ssrnsfa ioImaP ni xSrabaa
NJ. biniuger, grocer; w. Bebie, truaknaker; Ebene
ger Cotk druggists George H. jackson, jeweiier; Ao
drew Knsuer hatcher; Peter Close bootmlksr; George
Andrews, tailor; Patrick Grove grocer; " lillian D
Mr.. ana ms. willis were In court Mr Forrest was
sso in ate Ddspce ard Mrs Underwood and other wit
n..,es examined the recent divorce case we're pre-
seIt being INTENDED TO oer their testimony on part Of
Mr. Sanford opened th. care for the plaintiff brief
sdoIeftl, same In substsnce aud rssrly In language
.. that delivered by him on the former trial of Tbs
csuse lie cludsd by calling on the jury TO nerk BY
tbdI verdict thtir dspproya Of these sssaults OF th.
strong opon the weak, he would tell them II pouli
othervessd 70 stat. Of enarchy for the weak, II they
found no protection ~ the law viii rep.l the sssus OF
the stroDg ard be mr ssndord) wsuld declare there
NJ man that be would not hesitate to take the life OF
nep whose physical force be could not pet. with.
lie therefore trusted that the result Of this trial would
he example 70 the defendant salutsry warning
TO the community as long as tie recollection Of il should
live q
Ann Herrick heirg worn d,pos,d-iisr maiden meme
bpR Noraer uow rtsioe ii blsecg,r street;
SIDED 10 Cornths street IN 1860 was N the WashiDg
ton Parade Ground IN June 1880, Jaw tome gentlemen
stsnoirg there; there three standing togeher Mr.
Forrest of the Isrsofsi came ia at University
place; wss going down tho ccrrsr a Mscdouyal aud
Fourth sfreet.; noticed gentleman oomiuR u at tia
corner; have Stree ascertsnsd that II war ar Willis.
be took the walk leading towards Uniyersity place;
saw one n the three WHO were stGuding together
pyo1ch Mr. Wius un8eysiood II to be mr.. forrest hs
knocked Dir willis down from behind or the stde--l 90
not krow which, Ne the erss and approached
bp; tkc bor tF1ck az coon az he cane uo 70 NJ
Wif: there was nothing said, that heard before thu
blow struck; oaDnot I'll. What effect the blow had
on Mr. WINS Ii Knocked him down; he fell forward
xs doxrp faaL bfs