The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1859-08-03
Trial of George V. Foreman
FOR AN
Assault With Intent to Murder
ISAPHENE ALLEN.

FOR AN
Assault With Intent to Murder
ISAPHENE ALLEN.
This cause commenced before Judge J.
w. Okey. July 9th 1859. The court
house was well filled, there being an unus-
ually large number of witnesses-l54-
besides number of spectators.
The counsel for the State were VIM.
P. RICHARDSON Esq. Prosecuting Attorn-
ey. and Hon. E. ARcHBoLD; for the de-
fence Judge KENNoN, Judge CowEN, Hon.
VIM. F. HUNTER, and N. HoLLIsTER Esq
were employed. 1t was evident from the
first that the counsel for the defence
would leave nothing undone-leave no
point, however technical, untried. They
sat around small table, much of the
time is close consultation. --.s
The case, SO far as it appears in the
papers, is substantially as follows:
This is an indictment under the 18th
section of the Grimes Act, Scans st. 271,
which provides: "That if any person shall
assault another, with intent to commit
murder X upon the person so assault
ed; every person so offending shall be
deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and,
upon conviction thereof, shall be impris-
oned in the penitenitary, and kept at hard
labor, not more than seven, nor less than
three years." .......f fFsa....
The indictment was found at the March
Term, 1859, and charges in general terms,
like the indictment in Sharp Us. the State,
l9 Ohio, 379. that on the 18th day of
October, 1857. at Monroe County,
George V. Foreman, the defendant,
made an assault upon Isaphene Allen,
with intent to murder her. - ..s
At the same term the defendant filed q
special plea, showing that at the February
term, 1858, of said court, an indictment
was found against him. This indictment
is set out in the plea, and charges, in five
different counts, that on the 18th day of
October, 1851, at said county, the de-
fendant made an assault upon said
Isaphene Allen with intent to murder her,
and, by ways and means set out in those
counts, did murder her; and each of the
counts contains all the averments necessary
to constitute murder in the first degree
s and would in fact have sustained con.
viction for that crime, according to the
late cases; Fouts Us. The State, and Kai,
as. The State, 8 Ohio St. SO, 3O6. The
plea then AYERS, that at the same term
the case was submitted to jury upol
the plea of not guilty, and the jury having
heard the evidence, arguments of counse
and charge of the court, found the defen
dant not guilty; whereupon said defendan
was ordered to 60 hence. 1t is furthe
averred, that the record is still in full
force; that he is the same George V
Foreman who was thus acquitted; ant
that the naisdemeanor of which he was s.
indicted and acquitted, and the misdemean
or of which he is now indicted, are on
and the same misdemeanor; concluding
with veri6cation esf a-era
To this plea demur was filed, and q
the March Term, 1856, the demur wa
sustained. ,-...-.t ..,.r.
The defendant 6led another special ples
by leave of court, on the 9th of May las,
1t sets out the same indictment for mul
der, trial. and acquittal; the same avel
ment of the identity of persons; and the
AYERS that the assaulting, &C., ,mentione
in the two indictments is the same; tbs
on said trial the question whether the d,
fendant had committed said assaulting,
with the intent aud as in the indictmel
in this case mentioned. was submitted I
the jury, and the jury. after hearing tt
evidence, arguments of counsel, and Il
charge of the court, became and wei
satisfied that the said Isaphene ALE
'o dictment for murder stated, and tn,
and there determined as such juror
that the defendant did OF commit sa
assaulting, &c. and therefore found al
returned their verdict of not guilty; CO
~, cludiug with q veri6cation.
A motion was made 70 strike o
that plea. In disposing Of that motto
the court made substantially the followi1
remarks: ss RI rag Hs.a av
That part of this plea which wou
make an issue as to the grounds of a
quittal, is, so far as know without p1
cedent. 1t appears to me that the OPT
ions of jurors, not manifested by the
verdict, are of no more Importance th
the opinions Of any other individua
and that neither the State nor the 9
mo cused is bound or concluded by the
and, moreover, that such matter is inc
pable of issue or proof. gsrs SOP rove.
The principal question which is nj
presented-and the same question was p'
sented by the demur to the first plea
I think, substantially this: Foreman "
.,f indicted for murder in the first .degrs
was tried upon that indictment; for
purpose of sustaining the indictment. {
idence was given of q certain injury
Isaphene Allen, the deceased, which injr
produced the death; but the verdict v
not guilty: Can he be afterwards pr,
ecuted by indictment for the same bl
which produced the death, the indictms
'eo charging the offence as an assault W
q intent to murder? --,'s.