American Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1855-1860, 1855-12-27


-REPRiKAHp TO oxE ~ n Jgsons-
Judge Parker satal { c'eioek sesgeri.yi
morning ADepuly Sheriff talhAated 10
the Court frat tie Jury 10 Che case of Ar
rison. lou. duringSaiuTday highland SIM.
day night wished 70 communicate TO the
Court. - EHfA. Il
Tho Judge said the Jury might come
into Court aud state what tiiey desired.
On entering the court room they were
asked ifthey bad agreed.
Forsman-Wc haze not rgreed.
cOurt-Is there any prospect OF your
agreeing?
Fommsn-Nons Whatever.
The Court then sail that in trials Tor
murder. the Court; as a general rule. world
Itsel disposed to discharge a Jury when
they stated there was no probability Of
Of their agreeing. after bsing out over Tor
ty hours. Ir the present case the Court
felt tito be their painful duty before dis
charging this Jury. TO say, that q oireum-
stance had been brought to their knowl.
edge, Of grossly improper conduct on the
part Of one OF the Jurors. in handing sur
feptitiously q written paper 10 one Of the
lcoulse in tho case, and requesting him to
pay attention to 9 portion OF the testimony.
II may, perhaps, not be improper that q
juror should ask n question Of counsel in
relation to tho testimony, did he do 50 o.
i penly, and in the hearing of the court
This, however. was a sufreptilious and Sc
cret communication. and il the counsel tc
whom the paper was handed was as for
gstful Of his duty asthe juror. il may new.
or com to the knowledge OF the court. Il
evidently was not intended BY the juror i
should. Such conduct might subieetthi,
juror tola serious penalty. inasmueh as i
was a violation Of the oath ho had taken
Fromthee fact that these remarks nigh
create a prejudice against innocent met
on the Jury, the court felt 1t 70 be thei
dutyto name the particular juros--it wa
{ Mr., Spencer Cooper.
Mr. Osopar, Immediately inIerposing
said I've hoped that the paper alluded {
might be read.
The Court then read from the origins
! note, which was as follows:
S "Pteasedo not rgetMs testimony Of III
Erenca and the Barber"
Nj. Cooper did not deny having writes
= this, and he asked permission to explain.
: Gourt.-We will hear no explanatioI
0 now. We will discharge the Jury, an,
o direct tiist the Prose. cutting Attorney ex
smina the law. with q view TO see in wins
shape this matter in relation to the con
g duet or the juror may be brought befor
Q the next Grand Jury.
c fhe Jury were then discharged.
4 THE Reporter was informed in relaiio
to this note, that Mr.. Tllrasher, Deput
: Clerk, observed the Juror hand il to Judg
: Johnston. and ooncsiying his duty as a
" offiasr Of the court, was to give intimaIior
+ Of the fact to the Prosecuting Attorney
E requested Mr.. Gains 10 acquaint Mr.. Go
of tho matter. Mr.. Cox Immediately chi
for the note, and it was shown to hi'
o by Judge Johnston, the understanding b.
N ing that the attention OF thu court shoul
8 not be called TO Il at that time. Befol
Judge Johnston addressed tho Jury~hov
I. ever, he handed il Ia the Court. We lear
that Judge Johnston scrupulously abstail
$, cd from touchingt tho question. or aliudln
to the testimony to which his attention h:
5. been called by the Juror.
- The Jury stood. according to gcrer
report. founded on goo | authority. kier
sfors acqui,sl, and Gour for conviction
- The following are said to be the names
be tho Jurors sgainsta conviction:
Samuel Greenham. Carthage:
Thomas Shepherd, SharonviIle;
mt John G, Hunt, Sycamore townships
b John Moore. city;
:. Henry A. Bolman, Sycamore tp.
n Abraham Sandburn. Millcreek tp; =
VIM. Sandburn, Millcreek township.
TO Spencer Cooper. Sycamore township.
n. Those in favor Of a conviction were:
IL John G. Elliott, Sharonrille;
;. Henry r. Brokaw. Sycamore TOWNSHIP
Thomas Evatt, Springfield tp.
c5 Felta A, Bolser. Springfield tp.
be The prisoner hasbeen remanded toicp
,e toIy.S -Irsss& 4ft1 f m