The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-17
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.

The Jumel Estnte Case-Charge of the Judge.
Before Judge Snipman.
The further hearing Of the case OF George WASH
ington Bowen Vs. Nelson Chase was resumed yester-
day.
Judge shipman commenced his charge to the Jury
shortly after eleven O'CLOCK He thanked them for
the patience and attention they mad exhibited dur
ing this prOtracted trial. and observed that, as
great mass of evidence had been given for the
plaintiff as well as for the defendant, 1t would be
his duty to allude to It somewhat IN DETAIL espe-
cicially counsel on both sides, owing
to the time within which their argu.
ments had been restricted. had not been
able to comment upon 1t as fully as they desired.
In the first place he adverted 10 the caution which
he recommended the jury to exercise In weighing
the evidence OF witnesses who depOsed to the decla
rations Of persons who were long since dead There
was, OF course possibility Of contradicung these
statements by the parties alleged TO have made
tnem and there was, too the danger OF these decla
rations being misstated or OF important words
being transposed in the narrative. The learned
Judge read to the Jury portions Of the tessi,
proper under the circumstances. His
adverted to the fact that the plaintir had
never sought out or endangered to find Madame
as ss Ss Ra t ner
testimony to the effect that Madame had admitted
to servants children and strangers that she had had
a son. 1t would be for the jury to say what I'M.
they attached thus and whether ne It was
years have given force. to the promptngs OF her
world In search Of him. as. it ap-
peared, sne was free TO m aos He
own conclusions from it. with regard to the test:
plaintii, II was clear from the facts that he had
sworn falsely, either from design or accident. II
inaccurate, they would, probably, take the most
charitable view and attribute it TO falling memory
read considerable portion Of Hul's testimony,
SO that the jury might be able the better to I'M
for the went t. S1S
r. in 1868 to see II he could find any heirs to the
w@cn Mr. Devne was making as
lawyer, he had conversation with the plalntlff
and wv was not sn after that that they
Judge Edmonds office IN this city, with the King
Henry book and the yandervoort family. Bible
Bowon to have half the property If ne should
succeed IN winning IT.; but that agreement was de-
state the exact nature Of its terms. These circum
stances should be Kept IN mind with the view OF de-
this part OF the testimony. The testimony of Joseph
Perry was next reviewed. 1t was conceded on all
sa s @ Of Of the
tissue of Misrepresentation from beginning
10 end He mad sworn that he was
acquainted with the plaintiff at Charles
1t was concuslvely shown that Perry was born IN
Woodstock, Conn., though the plaintln swore he
knew HIM In his youth IN Providence. With regard
TO this the question Tor the jury to decide was, did
Perry engage In the business OF perjury on his own
mere motion, or was he accidentally found and In
structed ana trained In the part ne had TO play The
pla1ntn, though he stated ne was imposed on by
Perry, had offered proof on that point; and If they
found that the plaintin had Identified himself with
Perry, who. 1t was now conceded, had perjured
himself, 1t would be their duly to look into .he
whole case with cautious and vlgilant Inspection
marking npOn 1t as he went along, the learned
Judge concluded an able clear and comprehensive
charge leaving to the jury the responsibility Of
finding sucn verdict as tsey believed the evidence
warranted.
At ted minutes to three O'Clock the jury retired to
consider their verdict.
DISAGREEMENT OF THE JURY-THEY ARE DIS.
CHARGED WITHOUT VERDICT
AT ten minutes past eleven O'Clock last night
Judge Shipman took his place upon the bench, and
directed the officer TO call the jury into court This
was Immediately done.
the jury having come In,
Mr.. Stilwe, Deputy Clerk, asked them II they
had agreed upon q verdict.
The FOreman--We have not. Your Honor l think
1t Is impossible for us to agree.
Judge Shlpman then DISCHARGED the Jury for the
term, ana the Court was adjourned.
Alter the Jurors had left their seats OF them
stated, In reply to question from reporter, that
they stood six for the plaintiff and five for the de-
PENDANT, one Juror being absent owing to ill
ness A stipulation had been entered into between
the parties itigant mat the finding OF the eleven
jurors, had they agreed upon verdict, should be
as binding as that OF a full jury. This remarkable
case mas occupied almost eight weeks In its trial.