New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-27
THE TORPEDO MURDER TRIAL.

F,on tn, Cincinnati Covmsrei1i, D... IS
Judge PARKER Sat a O'Clock yesterday morning. A
Deputy She m intmated TO toe Court that Jury Ia
II case of Afrison, tout during Saturday Dgat, an
Sunday and sunday night wished to commu iicats TO
The Judge said the Jury might come into Court aud
state what they eesirt d.
On entering the Court they were asked if they
had agreed.
Foreman---Wr have not agreed.
Couri-ls there any IIospec! OF Jour agreeing
Ftreman-NOne whatever
The Court then sia that in trials for murder, the
Court, as a general rule, would fel disposed 10 dis
charge jury when they stat9d thsre was no prObi-
tity of their agreeing, after being ou' over forty
hours. In the present the Court felt II to be
tbei painful duty before srginy this july, to say
that Circumstance hac been brought TO Their kuow-
ecge OF gros,y improper CONDUCT on the part OF one
OF the Jurors 10 handing surreptitlolsly wntten
paper to Of the counsel in the case and requesting
rim to pay attention to portion o. the estinony
1t may perhaps not be improper that juror should
ak question of counsel IN relation TO the testimony,
cid he 30 openly, and in the bearing Of the Court
This, however, wa sure piitous and secret commu
picston; aud if the cours sci TO whom the paper was
hsnGed forgeful Of his duty as the juror, II
may never lave come - the knowledge of tho Court.
II evidently was not intended by the juror tia. II
should. Such conduct might subject this juror 70
serious peD6ity, ihasmuch as 1t was viola ION OF the
oath he had taken Fiom the fact that these remarks
might create prejudice against innocent on the
Jury, the CouIi felt 1t TO be their duty to name the
parii ular juror-it Mr. SJepcsr Copper
MIR. Cooper, Immediately lnterposluS sald ne hoped
that the paper alluded TO light be read.
The Court then Re ad from the original note, which
as follows:
"Phase do not forget the testimony Of NJ. Prem h
and The Barber"
NJ CooI CT did net deny he had written this, aud he
asked permission TO explain
Court-We will hear explanation now We will
dischsrge the jury and direct that the Proceeding
Attorney examine the law, with view 10 gee in what
shape this MISTER in relation 10 the conduct Of the juror
may be brought efore the nsIt Grand Jury.
TIE Jury were then discharged.
TIE Reporter informed in relation TO this note,
that Mr.. Ihrssher Deputy Clerk observed the juror
hand il TO Judge Johnston and conceiving his duty q.
an officer OF the Court to give intihs,iOn OF the
fact to the prosecuting attorney, requested M.
Gaines to scquant Dir. Cox Of the matter. Mr.. Cox
Immediately called for the note and il was sho TO
him by Judge Johnston, the understanding being
that the attention of the Court should not be called TO
il at that time. Before Judge Johnston addressed the
Jury, however, he handed II 10 the Court. We learn
the Judge Johnston scrupulously sb.ained from
touching the question abiding 20 the testimony to
which bis attention had been called by the jurT.
The Jurors Notwithstanding 10 general report,
four for conviction. The folio Fng are said to be the
pamts Of the Jurors against conviction: Samuel
Gfeerh ham, Carthage; Thomas Stephera, Shsronvile;
John C. Hunt, Sycamore ownship; John Moore, city;
HCDIy A. BOdman, Sycamore township; Abraham
Sanbuin, Miloreek township; VIM Sandburn, Mill
creek township; Spencer Cooper, Sycamore town
ship. Thoee in favor of conviction were: John {.
Elliott, Sbaronville; Henry Il. Brekaw, Sycamore
to sn,hip; Thomas Evstt, Springfield township; Feta
A. Bo,tr, Springfield township.
The prisoner hss been remanded 10 custody.