Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-10-29
N 0 H 0 PEI
BARNEY WOODS CASE.

In the general term yesterday, the OhleI Jus
tlce and Justices wylle and Macarthur de.
clared the judgment Of the court In the case Of
the appeal Of Barney Wood convicted Of the
murder Of Samuel NJ. Checseman, on the 18th
Of August last, and sentenced to be hung on the
9Th OF November.
The opinion, which was pronounced by the
Chief Justice, declines to grant motion for u
new trial, aud leaves
THg LAW TO rAKR ITS COURSE
The court held that since the act consOlid atlng
the courts no writ Of error lies from the supreme
court to the Criminal Court, hut that the appeal
allowed IL simply such an appeal as comes up by
tn the discretion Of the Judge below the General
Term will not Interfere, The court says how.
ever, that if II did Interfere In such cases the
present application presents no ground Tor Inter.
ference. Tho text Of the opinion Is as fOllOws3
United States vs., Barney wood. TN the Ist
day Of October Of this yehr tho grand Jury Of
this District returned into court a true Bill Of
Indictment against tho delendan Mt, charging him
IN the technical language Of the law with the
murder OF one Samuel NJ. Uhecseman,
On tho following day the defendant was ar
ralgned, and To the indictment entered up his
plea Of mot guilty"
On the 10Th OF October Jury was sworn. on
the following day, amer evidence, argument aud
instruction, the Jury returned a verdict Of
| "guilty."
On tho 18th Of the same month the defendant
BY his counsel, moved the court for a new trial
aud filed his reasons therefor.
AS appears Of record, the reasons alleged were:
l. For the misconduct Of one 81 the jurors who
NllNA Wv NAFNs - hAN Nho NNlAtNN was tNuNEAIg
| to the evidence.
In support Of the first ground tho defendant
offered two atdaylts which are on record.
Against the motion the United 'ates attorney
filed the affidavit OF tho juror sought 10 DO im.
peached, together with others tending to i'm.
peach the yeraclty Of the persons making tho
hfllnylts offered In support.
On the 18Th Of October the motion for new
trial was OveTFuled and the defendant sentenced
to be executed From the Judgment Of the
Court In overriding the motion for new trial
on the - Of October the defendant appealed to
the Court 10 General Term.
The second cause assigned for error Is not in.
| slsto1 upon by counsel or In any manner sus.
| tained by the record, and may be disposed OF
without further comment.
With reference 70 the irst sslgnment Of error,
viz, the misconduct Of one Of the Jurors
who tried the case" II is objected by the United
States that the point made Is not tho subject Of
error, and therefore this court Is without iuris-
Reference to the act OF July !, 1888 establish.
| Ing tho Criminal Court Of tho District Of 90
lumbla, and the act Of February 20, 1889, being
| an act to amend an act establishing tho said
Criminal Court, shows the legal relations Of the
Criminal Court to the Circuit Court az they pre-.
existed the organization Of this court, when II
will be found that the only reliei to party con.
vlcted Of crime In the Criminal Court was by
writ OF error to tho Circuit Court upon the al.
lowanoe Of the court or one OF the justices there
| Of The Jurisdiction Of these respective courts
was transferred to this court by the organic act
passed March 3, 1868, to be exercised Within the
| limitations Of judicial authority existing.
The only charge manifested In the acts tr ans
f5rrlng the jurisdiction Of the old Criminal and
Circuit Court In this District to this Court, Il TO
DO found In tho mode OF practice, appeal us a
necessity being substituted for a writ Of error,
inasmuoh as q court cannot issue n writ Of error
itself The appeal thus provided for merely
instituted a new method BY which the defend
five are right In this view, and OF Il We have
| no doubt, the question presented now Is simply
whether the Judgment OF the Justice holding the
Criminal Court In oyorruling the motion for a
new trial Is proper subject Of review 10 this
| court
la resolving the question We are hrst met with
the hitherto determination Of the question within
| this jurisdiction. Chlot Justice Oranch, 10 tho
| fourth volume Of his Circuit court Reports an.
| nOunces as the opinion Of the court that "a mo.
| tion for new trial Is on application to the
| sound legal discretion Of the court" and de-
| olded that II was not the subject Of error.
| This decision was announced as early as 1882,
| and does not appear to have been since DIS.
turbed. As far as this Jurisdiction therefore, is
| concerned, the question has heretofore been
| treated as res GdjudiCdte.
| Further examination advises US that the iu g..
| risdictiOns presiding over aud kindred with this
jurisdiction have uniformly held the same doe.
| trlns,
| The judicial authority Of Maryland, through
which this jurisdiction largely derived It's com.
| mon law and Interpretation, has uniform ly held
the doctrine announced by Chief Justice CfAneh,
as viii he found by reference to the decisions OF
| the Court OF Appeals In the nth volume OF Har.
| TIs and JOhnsUn's reports 10 the case Of Andsr.
son AGAINST The State, ia, when the Court uses
I'VE arc decidedly Of opinion that tho refusal
| OF an Interior court to grant new trial cannot
be assigned for error. Tho law has been con-
/ sldeTed as settled In this country beyond all
| controversy, and no case can DO found 10 Eng
land where a superior tribunal, acting on the
| transcript OF tho record itself, brought before
| them by writ Of error, has entertained such u
Jurisdiction"
The same doctrine was repeated IN Wall vs..
Wal, - Harris and ours Reports, 81.
| As In the courts Of Maryland, so In the Su .
preme.Oourt Of the United States, We ind tho
| doctrine announced, beginning with the 9Th vol.
June OF Cranch's Reports, In the case Of the Ma.
| Tlne Insurance Company OF Alexandria vs.
| HOdgsOn, and continuing down through uni.
| form series Of decisions to the case OF ChiAng.
vs. the URISd SH6S, TeG0TSea IN s Wat
| The reasoning rendered by the Supreme Court
Of the United States furnishes the key to tho
| uniform judgment Of that tribunal
In the case Of McIRuahan VS. the Universe |
Insurance Oompany, reported In LIST Peters, 1871,
| Justice Story says:
at is to be considered that those points do not
| come before this court upon motion for new
trial after verdict addressing itself to the sound
discretion Of the court. In such cases the whole
evidence is examined with minute care, and the
influences which n Jury might properly draw
from II arc adopted by tho court ITSELF H. there
fore, upon the whole case, Justice has been dO,Ie
TALLY right no new trial will DO granted,
although there may have been some mistakes at
the trial. The reason Is that the application Is
not matter OF absolute right In the party, but
rests In tho judgment Of tho court, and Is 10 DC
granted only when II Is In luTtherance Of sub
staptlal justice"
Thus Il Ia seen that this court and the courts
In Intimate advice and authority over this tTl.
bunal have held unlnterruptedly the doctrine
that we are without jurisdiction, nOtWithstand
| Ing II Is urged with much ingenuity and painful
eaTncstness that the courts disregard these Au
thOrities and adopt the conclusions OF the high.
est tribunals OF several Of the States In thelI
stead The court does not feel At liberty to dc
It, without reviewing these authorities In do
tall, II may DO remarked that many OF them are
the offspring OF local legislation, aud do not 70
suit IN any we'll defined and definitely settled
principle
Some Of them present extreme cases, whore
the action OF the inieTleT court disclosed fraud
SSSo abuse Of sgrsSD :! % s 5PI
In Its character as 10 involve corruption or imbe
cllity the matter would he without remedy.
From this class Of extreme cases the authOrI
ties presented entertain jurisdiction to the eN
tent Of reviewing very doubtful cases, until by
this process the superior court Is made to be sub
siltuted for the court trying the case, without
/ any legal knowledge Of the laets upon which q
was tried. To these doctrines this court cAnnO
consent, and these decisions, when Viewed in thI
| light Of the cases In direct authority with THU
court, cannot be sustained.
Passing from the question ofJurlsdlctIon with
out further comment, It is due to oandOr for thu
q | court to say that had the motion been properly
9 made to this court, had We the power TO do
termlne 1t, we should have been compelled l.
decide as did the court below. The record pre-
sonted to US furnishes evidence In support Of th
-. melton that one Of the jurors b6lnR sworn
touching his fitness as 4 juror In tho case, al,
s having declared he was without bias or prslu
. dice aud that he had not formed or expresses
any opinion, was accepted and sworn as n Juror
that subsequent to the rendition Of his verdict
alhdavlts were made by one Potter and Evans
tending TO show that previous To tho trial In
same juror had declared TO them that the eOuF
and Jury would convict them all that Woo
would share the same fate as jenkins, who hA
shortly before been convicted Of murder, whic
afhdaVls were denied by the atidAyit OF tn
d juror and that further alldaylts Of eight vii
y nesses that Potter and Evans we're not worth
{ Of belief under oath.
In Its light II will he seen that the cl aim Of tn
!. defendant was that the Juror had said that III
Q defendant would be tried and would meet IN
b fate Of jenkins, asserting what would be don
u rather than what he would do, making a doubt
Il iul claim In itself considered, and a new trial
J. the light Of the contradictory and impeachin
10 testimony more than doubtful. II follows tina
D. the appeal should be and Ia dismissed.
9 An effort TO obtain a Communication Of Wood
sentence will DO made
BOYS CLOTHING
An unusually largo stock IA bsing Otfsre1. N