The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-11-17
trial of said case and the evidence therein reportc
for said papers.
! Nov. 16, 1S58-Sworn in open Court
THOMAS II. GARDNER, Clerk.
| State
VS.. MOTION FOR New TRIAL.

trial of said case and the evidence therein reported
for said papers.
Nov. is, iS58-sworn in open Court
Thomas H. GARDNER, Clerk.
VS. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
GdmJrrU
In open personally appeared George Bramwc and
made oath in due form of law that he Of the petit
jury in the trial of this that whilst they at
their room provided by the Court in charge Of the
baG, two persons, one of whom he recognizes AS
Mr. Cathcar the foreman Of the Grand jury came into
their and held conversation with several of their
number that he did not hear all of the conversation but
did not hear anything said about the trial of the
and further deponent saith not
Nov. 10th, lS5S.-Sworn to in open Court.
THOMAS II. GARDNER, Clerk.
Mr.. Hack then said that the defence did intend to
the first second and third of the motion
for trial. they would be left the consideration Of
the Court He would proceed to discuss the fourth and
fifth He said gross infraction of law had been
committed and therefore the verdict should be set aside
Mr. Hack said that on the last day the testimony was
taken in this case the counsel had conversation
about the introduction of witnesses for the
defence, and they had stated they proposed
to examine witness o the following
ing that the next day article appeared in the Sun
newspaper giving its why the defence did not
proceed with its testimony on the day previous
stating that the defence supposed it would be able pro
the attendance of man named Richard Harris who
would upon the stand and confess that he had fired
the shot which killed Benton The jury had to the
newspaper containing this statement and therefore, the
calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury unfavoraby
towards the prisoner Mr.. Hack urged that the jury
ing matter in regard to the case forming part Of the
evidence and said this sufficient ground to set aside
the verdict He cited many cases from the books to
tain this part of his argument
Mr. Hack then argued that two persons had been ad
mtted into the jury during their deliberations and
before the closing of the testimony in the that this
was illegal and that the verdict of the jury should not
stand The bafs to keep the jury together
and let person have conversation with them whether
in relation to the trial not He cited many
ses from Whartons Criminal Law Robnson's Virginia
Reports Pckerings Reports in support of this posi-
thai nIa
fully furnished with newspapers containing reports of the
testimony in the cause, and that this suhi-
cient to set aside the verdict he cited from
I'd Summers Reports, p 83-The United States Gil
berwhere the bail had allowed the jury have
to the papers, but before doing had removed every
thing from them relating to the case; motion for
new trial this fact made the objection to the legality
of the verdict, and the Court granted trial In this
case all the papers containing the testimony given
to the jury not only the testimony but remarks from the
reporters shadowng forth the policy of the defence which
we were exceedingly careful to keep from the jury Mr.
Hack conended that the designs of the defence
raed by these and that the minds Of the jury
were improperly affected thereby.
Mr.. Duffy, the part of the State, remarked that he
was under the impression the question would be
gued until the latter part of the week not there
FORE well prepared to speak upon the question he
would desire He then said that there evidence
here to show that the iury had been tampered with
The defence offer the affidavit of of the jurors who
tried the to show that the jury had been tampered
with. Mr.. Duffy contended that such affidavit not
admissible as testimony in the cause the affidavit OF
juror cannot mpeach the verdict which he himself agreed
on In support of this he cited several from Arch
defence being about to bring another person the stand
to confess to the murder of Benton calculated
to impress the minds Jury fayOraby towards the
prisoner than otherwise.
Mr. Duffy said that the mere fact of showing that anoth
er person beside the jurors admitted into the jury
room, was not ground to grant trial upon, to
show that the jury spoken to- in relation the
case under consideration. The defence show that
the jury were tampered WITH not that there bare
possibility of their being tampered with.
After the conclusion of Mr. Dunry's argument Mr.
Whitney addressed Court He remarked he
would he
question would be argued to-day but he apprehended no
difficulty, as the case was very plain The State has
filed counter testimony in the case necessary
The only testimony the defence has filed is the adavits
of Mr. Bramwell and that testimony Mr. Whitney argued
was inadmssable The question is whether juror could
come in, and by an affidavit set aside solemn verdict
rendered in open Court lie conended that such testi
mony could not set aside the verdict and quoted in
support OF his argument from Archbalds Criminal Prac
uce lie cited where the jury in coming to their
verdict had tossed up TO decide and afterwards juror
had made affidavit to that effect and trial asked for
the Court had overrued the motion and the verdict
tanned Mr.. Whitney referred to the fact of the
bers of the Grand Jury being admitted to the ury room
simply an invitation for them to attend church.
He contended that this could have influence upon
the minds of the jury and that they had not been mprop
ery interfered with He then referred of
the jurors being allowed to read the daily papers, and said
case could be found in Maryland where verdict
set aside because the jury had been permitted read the
newspapers in the jury The jurors the Court
aware read the papers during the progress of the trial
while sitting in the jury box In relation to the article
in the Su referred to by the defence Mr. Whitney said
was merely published as incident of the trial. the
matter it contained freely circulated through the
community by Gambrs friends, who had stated that
Harris was going to assume the responsibility of the
der it secret the report favorable the
Of the prisoner if they could get out the impression that
such would be the the jury would have got that i'm
preston by some means or other.
After Mr. Whitney had concluded Judge Stump asked
who were the Bails who had the jury in charge when
they were visited
BaG Riggs replied, that Mr. Ball and he were pres
ent
Judge Stump.-Well why did you let anybody go into
the you have been here forty years. and you
ought to know your business
Baf Riggs-"I understood here that these gentlemen
would be allowed to see the jury"
Judge Stump.-''Who the persons"
Baiif Riggs.-''Mr. Cathcart and Mr.. Randolph. They
came there to invite the jury to church. invited them
into the side room they sat down few minutes and then
went into the jury room, where the jurors sitting
around the table, they asked the jury to attend church
Judge Stump.-"How did you let any person
go in? You know the nature of your OATH you have
it is your fault that all this trouble arisen"
After this conversation Mr. Pitts the part OF the de-
fence his argument in favor the motion
He contended that the affidavit of the juror admssi
ble and said that there in Maryland reported
where such affidavit ruled to be inadmissble He
cited the case of Bladen Cockey, in Harris and Nc
Henrys Reports, where the affidavit of juror taken
in evidence and several other sustain his posi-
ton He argued that in the conviction of this party the
rules of law had not been adhered to- He said if the doc
trine is established that the jury strangers
while trying case when mans life is involved and that
this IS not ground to set aside the verdict then
had better take the locks off of doors let every
BODY enter and parake OF the Jurys hospitality, or let
them and deliberate in the Court yard accessible to
and in the hearing of the community. We show, said Mr.
Pitts that permitted to enter the Court con
trary to all rules of law and then told that this
violation of law must be shown to have influenced the
minds of the jury. He urged that this interview with
the jury sufficient ground aside the verdict if
by the decision of this Court the precedent is esab
shed that the ba permit to enter the jury
room hen henceforh there no protection for the Grim
inal Mr. Pitts then referred to the fact Of the jury
being allowed to have access to the daily papers,
and ah denounced 1 it, it as gross infractiGR Of
why the verdict should not stand He said that it
has only been within few years that reports Of what
took place in Criminal Courts, have been published
in the newspapers and contended that the varied and
conflicting testimony taken and published, and tn read
by the jury were calculated to influence improperly the
minds of the jurors He cited cases to show where ver
diets set aside because the jury had
papers, although they contained in them part of the
evidence Mr.. Pitts said that if any during the
progress Of the trial had taken notes according to such per-
sons view of the evidence and such notes had been
this transaction would certainly be held illegal
verdict be set aside he asked what difference there
between such written evidence and that printed in the
papers of the day. He therefore claimed that verdict
should not stand on account of the ilegaty of the
ceedngs in the
o'clock when the Court stated that it would take time
consider the question: it very important and
would thank the counsel to furnish notes of the auhor
ties cited by them.
Mr. Pitts said the defence would file other adavts in
relation to newspapers being furnished the jury.
The Court then adjourned until 10 O'Clock, this
ing.
CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY-Hon. Wm. George
Krebs, Judge. The Court engaged in the following
business yesterday:
L. NJ Reynolds, Trustee, Caspar Muller et al Bill
to vacae deed heretofore argued Opinion of the Court
filed vacating the deed Reynolds for complainant, C.
Yellou for defendant
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs.-TTOn. VIM. L. Mashall,
Judge. The following business occupied the Court yes
terday:
James S. Browning James Desvarrcux. An action
to the value of land, prior conveyance of
which had been made by the defendant. On trial.
UNITED STATES CITCuIT COURT.-The Hon Judge Giles.
The Court engaged in the following business yester-
day:
Lewis Roberts as. Gideon W. Barbank and Addison
Roberts William Thompson and John Pickell. An ac-
tion to the amount of certain promissory
given in payment for coal lands. Before reported On
trial T. S. Alexander for plaintiffs; Judge Martin and
Washington YellOtt for defendants
SUPERIOR COURT.-Hon z. Collins Lee Judge. The
following business occupied the Court yesterday:
August J. Berg William Knabe and Edward Belts,
surviving partners of Henry Gaehe. Before reported
Jury out. j. Malcolm for plaintiff Schley, Dobbin, Tai
bott and 7. s. Alexander for defendants.
Thomas j. Matthews Stephen Cole. Steele and Ia
CART for plaintiff; Kilbourn and C. W. Pnkney for de-
fendant
Assignment for to-day 35S TO 3S3.
Information has been received from Col. Miles,
Commander of the expedition against the Navajo
Indians, of successful scout into the Navajo cOun
try. The troops succeeded in killing ten Indians,
woundipu MANY apd canturinp pnui-