Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-10-26
BARNEY WOOD.
EI0rt. for n New TTInI-Ths Cnss BEFORE
GENERAL Term,

GENERAL Term.
The counsel for Barney Wood In his late
trial for murder are dlsputing Inch by Inch the
execution OF the sentence pronounced at the con
cluslOn Of his trial by Judge Humphreys.
The case was called up yesterday afternoon In
the supreme Court OF the District Of Columbia
Upon the following motion the defendant now
comes afteT verdict and before Judgment, and
moves the court for a new trial First. For the
misconduct Of one Of the jurors who tried said
case. Second. The verdict was contrary TO the
In support Of the frst ground tho defendant
offered the atfdayits OF John PAtten, heretofore
published ln this paper.
Mr.. Riddle appeared for the accused, and Mr..
Harrington for the United States.
Mr.. Riddle said he would rely upon the fol.
lowing points and authorities contained In his
brief
i, Appeal brings up tho whole record.
IL, The appellate court has power TO review
the ruling u the court below on the motion for
a new trial. Ora. \ W., New Trials, l2l3 H.
~, 40 MoAhee vs.. Ryan, II Miss, 364i Moore
| Va. Foster, 10 b. Mon, $50; see also, ID, $780,
Bib, ID Mon, 10; 4 Humph., (Tenn.,) 3g9-
| lth Ga, 42sj State vs. Hopkins, lst bay, 372
BusIok vs. The State, 10 O., 1885, Monroe ys. The
state. 9th Ga, $751; also, % ID, 2s7; Sellers w.
3 How, lMlss.,) q; see also hlcKinly VS.. smith,
Hard, 1877; Britain vs.. Allen, ID Dew, l2li
| Studley VI. Hall, ~ McCOfd, 1885, Bishop W..
The State, o. Ga, l2li People on rel, SO, 8
/ Wond., 10; Vance vs.. Hasllt Blbb., l0li
Plummer VS. People, 9th Ga, 29s; Moautiee vs.,
The State, II Ga, W. LIST Bishop erin. pro,
i'll. The motion 10 this case ought to prevail.
/ Soc all above authorities, also YeTmllea's case,
| 7th Cow, los and mote; q. W, New Trials,
| l2S; Id, AS IL Id. l63; state vs. Hopkins, LIST
| Bay, 372j u. s. vs.. Fries, Dal., OLD
| MIR. Riddle, continuing, urged that the motion
| for % new trial In this case comes within the
| rule adopted In 4 series OF cases which he
| quoted The motion for new trial, though
| sometimes said TO be addressed to the discretion
| Of the court was In those cases In which the
/ pTepOnd eTance Of the evidence was clearly on
| one side matter OF right 10 the accused, and
| SUBJECT as were all other matters Of right sub.
| iect N the supervision Of the superior court.
| The facts showed In these aitidavits would have
| been sufficient cause, had they been known be-
fore the trial Tor u challenge, and II tho lnfOr
was uniit to sit on the trial no verdict made by
him was proper
The Ohiuf Justice. The authorities which you
have examined, Mr., Riddle, seem u show that
some times the Superior Court will take IuTs.
dlctlpu In n case which Is submitted To the dis
cFotiUn Of the court below, and the Limitation
seems o he sOmow here about the line you arc
now travelling, but tho Iprecise Limitation Ii not
| exhibited 50 lar as you have real.
| Mr. Riddle salt that where tue court below
| hal duue a wrong 10 tho exercise VI rs discre-
/ ton the court above would examine Into the
| case. This case was one Of that character.
| The Chief Justice, at o'clock, SAID that the
| hour Of adjournment had arrived. The Court
| would consider no Uthff onas than THIS tO'mOr'
| row, and It's further consideration would DO al
! lUuTned until that timu.