The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-10-10

Tn GRAHAM CASE YESTERDAY Nov Nj PRo-
crlpsNos IN CouRr TIE sour, was star I'd
yesterday morn ng by an application from
Gle, en- of the twelve urors empsnnelled 10 this
case o discharge them 1. ON fulfilling du,y
which, n their pinion, the i'm, utatlons cas-.
upon he twelfth uror disabled them from per-
forming n sati fact0 y manner TO themselves
Many ave been the specu at ons upon the
motives which led to tits te, on the psr< Of
the ury It is clear that SO long as Mr.. George
Wclman Wight come ton Of the prisoner.
having been mpannelied thrcush trrer, negli-
gence or q, cident-sas upon the ury, YER
dict OF acquittal wou d b we been viewed with
suspicion by large portion o the community,
and would have afforded czvil!ers fair oppg-
tunity 10, denying t. ,ustice. IT. therefore. as
the trial proceeded, the eleven protesting
jurors saw that their minds were leaning to-
wards IN acquit a., the most natural thing in
the world for them to do was Gust Wright
from among them in order that their verdict
should not be tainted with suspicioc. How
ever this be, the application was made, and
after uch discussion, and very proper re-
luctaDcc on the part of the Court, Mr.. Wright
was withdrawn by consent of the prosecuting
officer and the prisoner. The trial then pro-
ceeded before eleven jurors, and Mr.. O'Conor
at once began his closing speech
| Expositions of law are beyond the province
Of newspapers. 1t belongs to US, however, to
review the proceedings of courts Of justice,
aud where they do not seem to US conformaole
| to The rules OF common sense and equity, to
express candid opinion thereon. Acting upon
this principle, we have watched the whole pro
ceedings in the case of this jury with great re.
greet How came Mr. George Wellman Wright
on the jury at all? How did it happen that his
relationship to the prisoner, which was known
to so many, was secret from the prosecuting
| oflc r whose business it was to find out "all
about the ury? How came it that Mr.. George
Wellman Wright held his tongue when empan-
| nelled, and suppressed the material fact of his
| relationship? Again, the case having been
commenced VITA this incompetent Juror, in vir-
tue of what precedent was he withdrawn and
the case continued before eleven others? We
have read constantly that when plaintiff sad
defendant after the commencement of a trial
desired to settle their ierences amicably, and
not proceed with the case the mode employed
was the withdrawal Of a Juror by consent-this
formality being regarded as tantamount to
quashing all former proceedings. Will it have
this effect in the Graham case? or can the con-
sent Of parties supersede the law!
Suppose, in short, that Mr.. Graham is ac-
quilted: how many people will believe that he
had a legal trial, and that the death Of Loriny
was legally avenged? Suppose he is con-
demned. He has in the first pace capital
gro nd to 60 before the Court Of Appeals
against his own consent: and again, the infor-
mality would obviously weigh heavily in the
scale should the case be transmitted to the
Governor for pardon.
Altogether this is another Jury trial with
which the public have great reason to be dis
satisfied. In many cases recently, the ends o!
just &c have been defeated by the bungling OF
counsel in empanneling iuries, and the perver-
sity or fraud of interested jurors. We tcust
| that the final issue of the Graham case will not
furnish the opponents Of jury trials with ano.
ther argument.