New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-21

ton having been granted, their COUNSEL moved that
the recoguizarces they had already given be can
ceeS, which, of course, could not be refused. The
official. then began TO think they were goisg 8
little too fast and desired TO get rid of the odium
cf committing the prisoner. 10 jail in which, how
ever, they we're th~nted By tie refusal Of the
prisoners to give Any new IecosnizSnces.
The account Of this mat er entered on the min
uies Of the Court, represented that the recogni-
zsnces had been given up o. the prisoners Of their
own free will, wbereupoa they we're ordered into
custody. The counsel for the prisoners objected
to this record as faie, and desired 70 have the
case stated as it Was; but the Judge refused II
make any change, intms.ed that the counsel were
insolent and threatened to throw them over the
bar, or, in other words, to deprive them OF the
right Of appearing in mis- Court |. counsel Judge
Spsudipg, one Of the number, replied that he had
merely erdeavored 10 assist the Court in arriving
at correct understanding Of the case, aid Il, for
his efforts in that behalf the Court SAW fit to
strike his name from the roll, it might De done at
once.
Having thus hectored the counsel, the Judge
next proceeded TO take the reporters to task. He
seemed not TO be Satisfied with the reports which
had been given of the case and as il was, be said,
impossible to keep the Jury from reading the city
p.per,, be took it upon himself to appoint re-
porter of bis own, who should be sworn to report
the testimony correctly. We are inclined to think,
however, that it was not so much the Jury whom
the Judge had in his eye, IS the public at large,
who might read the reports.
AT first, the Judge seemed determined to go on,
as be had already said he should, with the same
Jury which had tried the other case. That it
seems, Was struck Jury, so called, the granting
of which by the Judge had been thought "a to
boon. But it did not prove 50. The Marshal bad
originally returned forty persons, of whom thirty
we're Democratic dOushfaces, and only ten Replb-
licsns though in the Northern District of Ohio the
Republicans are, as every body knows, in large
msjority. From this forty, each side struck of by
turns till the Jury was reduced to twelve, in the
course Of which operation the ten Republicans all
disappeared, leaving as the final resduum twelve
Pro Slavery Democrats. These Jurors, having
shown Themselves quite willing to take on their
own shoulders all the responsibility Of convict
ing the District Attorney, after they hsd
convicted one defendant, proposed to bring
before them all the others In succession.
When this project WAS fret brOsched, the Judge
went into it heartily. Having taken Sunday to
think of it, be still persisted in the same intention
on Monday; wtereupon, Judge SpauldiDs chsl-
lenged the array on the ground that this Jury
having been specially struck for the trial of par
ticuar case, it did not and could not stand in the
place of the regular Jury of the term. Other
counsel urged the uniform practice in the State
Courts, that 8 new Jury should be had for every
successive trial upon indictments based on the same
state Of facts; and finally the Judge was obliged TO
give way, and TO order new jury.
The prisoners are very jealousy and ably de-
Tended by Messrs. Spaulding, Backas and Riddle,
who have volunteered their services in the case.
The case now on trial is that of Charles Lsnston.