Wyoming democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Wyoming Co., Pa.) 1867-1940, 1867-08-14
THE SURRATT TRIAL.

THE JURY FAIL TO AGREE UPON A VERDICT
THE JUDGE CHALLENGED BY THE ATTORNEY
FOR PRISONER.
This celebrated trial which has occupied
sixty days since the first juror was sworn,
and which has excited so much interest
throughout the country was closed by a
failure of the jury to agree upon verdict
on Saturday last During the progress of
the trial 2S2 witnesses, in all, were exam
ined. The prosecution first examined IA
witnesses in chief; 80 witnesses were ex.
amined by the defence. The prosecution
followed in rebuttal, and after examining
73 witnesses, none others appearing, the
defence was allowed to examine 13 witness
ses in surrebuttal, principally in relation to
| witnesses whose character had been assail
ed. The prosecution resuming, examined
26 witnesses in rebuttal, and the testimony
then closed with the examination of 4 wit
nesses in surrebuttal.
The per diem of the jurors amounts to
$2.3S4, The jurors are allowed two dol,
lars per day. -Four ofthem were sworn in
sixty days ago and the others two days af-
forwards. The government is responsible
for the hotel bill of the jury, and it is not
known yet what it amounts to. The purely
legal fees to witnesses will amount to over
twenty thousand dollars. The bill for car.
riage and cmuibus hire to the jury amounts
to seven hundred and thirty dollars. Be
sides this it is said that the prosecution has
large contingent fund, and most OF it has
already been expended.
At one o'clock on Saturday, the prisoner
was brought into the courtroom and assign
ed the seat occupied by him during the
trial, beside his counsel. He came into
court smiling, and seemed to be in good
spirits as he chatted with his counsel.
| Mr. Middleton, the clerk of the court. ad-
dressing the jury, said: "Gentlemen ofthc
jury, have you agreed upon your verdict 7"
Mr.. Todd--We have not been able to
agree.
Judge Fisher--I have received the fol-
lowing letter from the jury:
To TIE Hon. George p. Fisher, Judge Of the
Criminal Court:
SIR: The jury in this case of the United
States VS.. John IT. Surratt most respect
fully state that they stand precisely now as
when they first ballotted upon entering the
room. They are nearly equally divided,
and they are firmly convinced that they
cannot possibly make verdict. We deem
il our duty to the court, to the country. and
in view of the condition of our private
affairs and situation of our families, and in
view of the fact that the health of several
OF our number is becoming seriously i'm
pared under the protracted confinement, to
make this statement, and to ask your Honor
| to dismiss Us at once.
Most respectfully submitted,
W.B ToDD, JAMES Y.DAvIs,
ROBERT BALL, CoLUMBUs ALEXANDER,
J. RUSSELL BARR, WILLIAM Mclean,
THoMEs BERRY, BENZ. F. MoRsELL,
GEORGE A, BoHRER, B. E. Cuttings,
C. G. SCHNElBER, w. W. BIRTH.
After the letter bad been read Judge
Fisher asked if anything was TO be said on
either side why the jury were not to be
| dischared.
Mr.. Bradley said the prisoner did not
consent, and if they were discharged it
would be entirely against the protest ftbe
prisoner.
Mr.. Darlington said he would leave the
whole maUterwth the Court.
Judge Fisher said he had already re-
ceived two or three notes of similar tenor
to the oLe already read. Ifthere was any
possibility of the jury agreeing he would
not object to keeping them for a reasonable
time; but as he was informed they could
not possibly agree he would discharge them.
The jury were accordingly discharged at
ten minutes past l o'clock.
| They stood from the first ballot to the
last, eight for acquital, and four for con-
viction.
Judge Fisher at this point ordered that
the name of Mr.. Bradley senior, counsel for
the prisoner, he stricken from the roll Of
Attorneys practising in that court, giving
as a reason, that Mr.. Bradley had used in
sulting language towards him during the
trial. Mr.. Bradley denied this statement
and claimed that his name could only be
stricken from the rolls by the act of three
judges Of the supreme court.
After adjournment of the court Dir.
Bradley handed Judge Fisher challenge;
claiming that the Judge had intimated on
the bench that the matters of difference
could be settled by them in that manner.
Judge Fishers course in this affair has
produced much surprise among the men,
bers of the bar of the District. They are
bitter 10 their denunciations of the Judge,
and have called a meeting, to be held on
Monday morning. They seem to make
common cause against the Judge, who they
openly declare has disgraced himself by US
ing his official power to resent personal
insult.
Surratt was remanded 10 the custody Of
| the Marshal and returncd 10 iail