The national Republican., 1867-07-16
aatiuual gspnblitatl.
s~FoR INTERESTING LOCAL NEWS
SEE THIRD PAGE.
THE COURTS.

ORIMlNAL OOURT-JUNE tEhh N"fV
Jnsties Cartier The court opened yesterday
morning at ten o'clock, and transacted the foI-
lowing business:
United States vs. Charles A. Dunham alias
Sanford Conoyer. Assistant District Attorney
Wilson appeared for the United States, and Judge
Lander for Dunham.
BY the conviction Of Durham for perjury, and
sentence to the penitentiary, came up again upon
a motion for q new trial In the intermediate
time, motions for new trial and arrest Of judg.
ment had been made and overuled In the Grim.
inal court and upon appeal this decision had
been sustained by the court In general term.
The Arst ground for new trial stated but not
argued BY Judge Lander, was, that the panel
conyiotipg Dunham was not properly summoned
and did not constitute legal jury.
The Court suggested that no objection Of this
kind havi0g been heretofore made, II might be
considered ns waived.
Judge Lander said that duty to his cl ent 70.
quirsd he should suggest this ground, and, with
q mere mention, he would leave 1t TO the
Court.
The second and main ground for new trial,
was newly discovered evidence
The evidence alleged to be newly discovered
BY Dunham, consists, as shown by bis affidavit,
In this:
Durham had sworn that he met Hoar, alias
Campbell, In Montreal, In June, 1895, and II
was proved by Hoar that he was never In that
city, and by other witnesses that he was en-
ployed in New York during the whole Of June,
1855. Durham had also sworn that he met
Roberts, alias SctDevei, In Wilmington, N. c.,
In August, 1855. 1t was proved by Roberts that
he never was In WILMINGTON, and BY other wit.
nesses that he was elsewhere during the month
Of August, 1865. Durham now swears that
since his arrest he has been In Jail, and had little
opportunity to look out for evidence for his de.
fence; but that since his conviction he has found
parties who can prove the truth Of his asser.
tions In the matter, and also other matters tend
ing to show his innocence Of the perjury Of which
he was convicted. He proposes to prove by
VIM. shutss that he saw hoar with Dunham In
Montreal in June, 1865, and that other parties
can be brought forward who will testify TO the
same facts He proposes to prove by George
Waldron and one other witness that they saw
Schnevel and Durham together in Wilmington,
N. @, at the time alleged by Dunhami that soon
after Waldron went to Europe, and he (Dunham)
believed him dead.
lie proposes to prove, also, by various resi-.
dents of New York, that since the conviction Of
Dunham both Campbell and schnevel had boasted
that they had gotten Durham In the peniten-
tiary; that he had treated them very badly, and
had cut Of their supplies from the United States,
and that they would swear to anything TO get
him In tho penitentiary or into h-l They
also boasted that the atiidavits they had made
had saved the reputation Of the Democratic
party and the life OF Jefferson Davis, and that
the friends of Davis had opened their pockets to
them literally.
The aflidavits Of the parties whom, Durham
alleges be can bring forward, accompanying his
affidavit, and substantially the same facts as he
alleges he can prove by them.
Judge Lander said the case was not without
difficulties, but that be was sure the court would
see that tho ends OF justice could not be at
tanned without granting the new trial. II was
evident that had the evidence, which Durham
can now produce, been brought forward on the
trial no jury would have convicted him. He
had used due diligence to get the evidences,
and the fact that he did not discover II until
after conviction was not his fault In these
cases certainly there was remedy besides ap-
plication to the pardoning power, and that
remedy could be found only in q new trial.
Mr.. Wilson said that the ninety eighth rule Of
the court, absolute in terms, stood directly In
tho way Of the motion. That rule declared:
''No motion for new trial shall be granted
after q motion in arrest Of judgment" In this
case a motion for new trial and for arrest Of
judgment had been made, and the rule inter
posed m absolute bar to q further motion for q
new trial 1t was essential, too, that the court
granting a new trial should have before Its mind
the case as 1t moved and existed on the original
trial. There were but two ways In which this
was possible, viz: by an agreed statement or by
minutes Of the case. This court had no such
guide TO its action. II could not tell what effect
for the benefit Of Dunham, who was convicted Of
getting up false testimony, would have when op-
posed to plain statements Of respectable witnesses
sworn on the original trial and sustained by
documentary evidence. Hn referred to Hilliard
on new trials, us showing that a new trial would
not be proper In this case.
Judge Lander contended that the rule o
the court as construed by Mr.. Wilson would be
rule denying justice. He held that, construed
with reference to the subjec matter, and with
view to its reasonable intent, 1t was merely di
rectory as to the order in which motions growing
out Of the same condition Of things should b
made and was not intended to refer to Q motor
made upon new grounds Of fact which reasonA
Bile diligence could not have procured at th,
time the motion In arrest of judgment was made
The court, after consultation with Judges 0lii
and Fisher withheld its judgment.
Upon the application Of the prosecuting wit
ness and inj ured party for the discharge Of VIM
Robinson, charged with larceny and committe,
to jail, the Court said that upon the filing Of
written petition setting forth the facts, he woulS
order the release OF tho prisoner.
In accordance with the directions Of this Cour
new jury list was prepared yesterday, the
former list having been prepared without Al
exact compliance with the law upon the subject
1t will be rememb bered that at the opening Of th,
court the juries selected from lists improper,
prepared were discharged.
+. A. Boswell, Register of Washington, VIM
Laird, tax clerk of Georgetown, and Nichola
Callan, clerk of the Levy Court, having frs
prepared lists as by Law directed. held q Join
meeting and selected the names Of the partie
from whom the juries Of this year are to b,
drawn. The joint meeting selected four hun
dred from the city Of Washington eighty from
Georgetown and forty from Washington county
The Court adjourned until this morning.
EQUITY COURT-Chief Justice CARTIER
The court opened yesterday morning and trans