New-York tribune., 1871-12-19
THE COURTS.
T1lr ERIE EMBRACERY CASE.

TIE ERIE EABRACERY CASE.
MOTION 10 SIT ASIDE TIE VERDICT IN TIE
BEACK FRIDAY GOLD suIr-AFFIDAVlrs OF
the URYMEN-THE CHARGE OF BRIBERY
DENIED.
The suit Of Isaac O. Davis and others against
ueur, smith JAY Gould, and others. which is familiar
,o thc readers Of TUE TElnJNH as the case in which
oc,od attempts b:ibc the nry TO disagreement were
made came up before Judgc Freedman in the Superior
Court yesterday, pursuant to adjournment Dude! fe"
sppearur tor the fcndans moved 10 set aside the YER
dict on the grounds FIRST that the verdict PRODUCED
by coercion OF the Court second, that there was SONS
sort OF tampcring with the Jury which preindced .h'
asains, the defendants; third. that the stenoapne'
81 the evidence markcd by the pan,H,n, ,Se ntet
OF the counsel fourth. that the loty op u %
them. coerced by violence III the 1''
Mr Field presented separate affidavit Of Henry m
Martin. stating that he had been IL ori Thant INN ,yng
callcd on Wednesday night just before l1anh VIZ ia E
that three newspaper Offices giving ~ a. "hh
and seeking to have an article a1 m tnIer
with the iur, IN the case. The ainda''o VI 'e' " i'
one OF the jury men Tnn also 81. i s stood nine for the
% .od c. S' Mr. ds D- s ss sr voted for
fp hs.r h.rged bis ;C es md 1 sS II you san prove 70
~ ,S. iS e,1snec o. F.i .ni Gon "orAs~ l d -s
1 p,~s TST' ,.u Sssye .Pe.eh the rest
have. b. .: HI iu,i M dnp ss hi him G'tS or ~sT to ,ns, ect
s down m but Obliged to get w and move .DOa' @ 20
ts. 1 s''' r., ss' & ~ Mr. Una ocs sH Ghs
pcs lea 'res hSGrs and, ana Ssa saH % fs
- i M I'VE .goken the beet Of my recollection
TvJ is r,nrrb.ic eel that a DAYS ago judge Freed
ru granted order directing james y bien I anJ fr
-ntg juror, 10 give his deposition to ,e e"un i9
tc di,c. e Ia ~ III making hc ioia9h 10 se' asio
frc \. IDIOT Tie following is 0Bricn's hhidavlt;
". -nt a nl told Jotse NeC'nn we CO. coud S rot
u '@ 4', el Ss sSa ,s so NIGHT TS SSs room was
% 'e o le ;hsm'tI,rI warm b, ss SsTk Srq
.tfh
a G ben: ,,,, 'r mc4pur % several 1s 0'f'' OF .se @
cur e.~t, boult rrm into thr ar'ro"n :no
' ,t SIe Je s.o'' T,.fc not sacient eyi,
c, rr- 70 b., NJ m p,ants; |" unaersoed the
1s' 'uFrer Ih" Ju:se sI hsost - I1e ou r
o'L ,~ s rosh part Of TIE eTanee prs or
r0 r '.p foaSyied TO rsst & ss'G trr Ui %e darar
a leA sesiGo sal u, u PRONE m mn'aSTG % D ap
a ,eIci elerii tie words III ihe JuT''iO'I'
NLw nL,ELOPMENT
The ucAi aiayit new aud Interesting one S'hc'
1 d..eu,,, facts which, trle establish the TahSpa
ency of the alleged attempts, to bribe Wm L. Davis one
Of the ury hy one Baker reported IN the morning
jonr1,sI. Aryanlcr r. King testified as follows, Lis
- ,t,Ircit b,Ias cuirohOrat1d ~ Chester ONeli:
NOV; ;, a. 4 T. f i; a. .p o'ac "'S Me- una
s' "%t to S oa na s II%r nesd sess tat tn .se On
,pd ,,s ' C 'i~ q he ~ T Safcu Of whether Davis
m a, To- ,n cn '.S the he. loa.e %S No. az Wess r"sii
D ' - 1 ,'t, s' .ns as G's .fs s na' SaTs al
a. % & % 'issa af ana ana s s I is' T S .co1 a. he
o. l., g II Ga, requested Chester oNh,
Of ais;'s rhe,her Ds,i, n,d
a.. a Hs. saG ts,Ig roe Oadt 10 60 Dav
DAyi's house. and renamed
@ Of Int !9 ~ .s ~gn'I ln%s n" ons re s" Of ps in
IT, t. directly Indirectly IN ihe sO'ahel
MI >'.ticy opposed the motion to @et aside the yer
dir ir1 icai number of "idarits to rbnt those or
t.r d n>c liz cLc the attention Of the Court TO thc
gi 4 uu| hy iury; tine woId, Of the statute w"rr
Is agreed
iu"n Il r lrl"ttd aud hc supposed the Court would
H." now ltn"l" H. lie tben Submitted his own ahdavii,
which r dru"> that the Court USED anv coercion. and
1T tie affidavit of g.. W. Pouchor. making such aega-
uun Is fa Thr conns" for the defense did not object
4" the rtcIogdphCrs minutes being handed to the jury
MI S;ichGr, then Ic:d Tie afddvs of Isaac O. Davis,
john 4. Mrhcron. ard john Bonner the plaintiffs. all
"f whom d tina; they had anyt hing to say 10 the Jury
Directly ~ iL."cty, that they had any knowledge OF
ANY r"rnnr''d''h naNiug been made to them; nor did
t.cN author pers I" to any newspaper Office
I" have any article inserted III regard TO the brbeI!
question
G., l.. oh'rp. OF the jury, makes another ahi
GnNlt. n "nlh lie states that nothing was said abou
bribery III tc Jury until after the first ballot, ant
Ir rthrrHs wcr. ut any time seriously made sgains
- Bl ~ ard atcvcr hard language was used II was II
IicIr. Oirl,ns refusing to discuss the evidence
aud NAT 10 influence his verdict. Mr.. Oirien hhm.e
his view OF the evidence and that parts OF the eydenc
~ T"crncff For Hrs BBntf fe Fredericl
ILllhpe rrci;cs substantially the same facts ,
Ian. O'Er.cn also drpOses for the plantf III compi
,,rc wih aI ,thrr order OF Judge Freednan that nC
one alPro led him In any way " lnnurnot
lis >cIaci; and that he was not CONSCIOUS $, ,,t
Jud.r ana H. evidence. W L. Davis again deposts IN
b. vas aaIcIc,d by anything said or done IN the
y ~ bribery. lie ouv made remarks against bri'
because i~ refusal 10 argue the points MI bi
.J Ii1t ne cave liz verdict his own free will. The
oidNis John HriSer and d. W hlthe! JurV's Wei'
10 /, ,J. Ttci lccIte that OBrirn Was not serous!
I'll ,Ir r.. were submitted to Judge Freedman, who
resolved 10, 'C..I"h