The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-11-12
LAURA D. FAIR.
The Argument Before tho Supreme Court Of
California on Motion for New Trial.
The Points on Which o New Trial
Is Demanded.
INTERESTING LETTER FROM MRS. FAIR.

San FRANCISCO, nov. s. 1871.
The argument before the Supreme Court OF the
State OF California motion for new trial for Nra
Laura D. Fair comes up on the nth INST, and much
hope IL expressed that . decision will be given in
her favor.
The following are the I'VE fundamental points OF
the counsel on which the new trial IL demanded:-
That the Court erred In its ruling relative 70 the
competency Of several OF the jurors at the time they
That It erred in several OF its rulings during the
trial, admitting and excluding certain testimony.
That It erred In It's charge 70 me Jury and IN re-
That the verdict OF the jury was contrary to the
law and evidence.
verdict for other reasons, but particularly for the
reason that Beach and Liiteneld were not fair and
impartial jurors
the following letter from Mrs Fair to q person
who has taken much interest in her case shows her
feeling about the trial and her opinion regarding the
appeal taken to the Supreme Court. 1t Is evident
that she has strohg hope OF escaping the gaiows
and Of ultimate ireedom:-
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. q 1871.
DEAR s1R.1ne anpea, has been rece,ved and read
by me with great deal OF pleasure took the
liberty OF showing IL my attorneys. They think It
papers now. as is might be Constr ued into an ev
dence that we did not expect new trial from the
Court which my o 90 feel sS
have every faith In the Supreme Judges as honor
able men, but l. not knowing them. and judging
rom my experience with Dwinelle, have little
faith.
You never need have doubt as 70 the truth Of
what little appeared 10 the papers regarding the
errors OF the Court and the prejudice exhibited for
be assured when they could screen him and the pro-
secution liz should read persecuton) BY omitting
certain things which reflected too strongly the VII
iany and injustice beng done me, thev did So
Thus, instead OF there being room for doubt as to
the truth OF what ala appear against the Court,
they never published half thar took place. For in
stance, when the motion for new trial was being
heard before Samuel H. Dwnelle (may his name
never be forgottenl my counsel produced against
the Juror d. q. Lttle1eld the following affldavits,
which shall give you from the oficial report omit
ting OF course all the preliminary questions as to
age, residence &C. &c, and c0nnne myself TO the
point at Issue simply, that Jon may know make no
mistaks:- -
being duly sworn, dep0ses and says-I have known
d. g. Littefed for nearly year past; have met him
frequently at q grocery store kept by William Metz,
on the southeast corner OF suffer and Powell
streets In this city; that within few days after the
smoothing OF A. p. Orfttenden met said LIttened at
said grocery store, and deponent and said Lttlened
mad conversation concerning said shooting OF said
Crtttenden BY said defendant, and which converse
ton was in substance, as follows:-Said Littlened
stated that they would hang her me4ning MRS. Fatp
for shooting Mr. Crittenden; ! said. They never
Will and ought not to DO n. - HIS private acts wfll
10 made known on The trial which would show