Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-10-28
SEiLT UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH.
Ire lase of Barney Woods.
his APPEAL TO THE COURT IN GENERAL TEE
TOR VIEW RIAL DISMISSED.

BIS APPEAL TO THE COURT IN GENERAL TERM
FOR NEW TRIAL DISMISSED.
Barney WOODS, whC wa recently convicted in
the criminal court OF the murder OF Mr.. Samuel
NJ. Cheesman, moved. through his counsel, for
anew trial, II ill be remembered, the reasons
leged being, 1st. For the misconduct of one of
the Jurors Who tried the case. %. That the
verdict y as contrary 20 the evidence. on the
1871 OF October the motion for a new trial was
oVCTruied and The defendant was sentenced to
he executed on Wednesday, the 9th of Noyem-
Der next. From the judgment of the court In
OvCrruling the motion Tor new trial, on the
"a on october me defendant appealed to the
The appeal was before that court on FRIDAY
and Saturday of last week, This morning, in
me supreme conrt IN general term-J Judges
Cartier, Wy!ie, Macarthur and Humphreys
the appeal was dismissed. The court room was
well tiled with members of the bar and others
a large number OF those present being acquaint-
a. the time but his step daug hter and one of his
children were at the court house at an early
hour, hoping to be able to carry the tidings of a
new trial 10 their unfortunate father hut in this
they were disappointed.
Chief Justice Cartier delivered
THE UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE COURT.
Inc decision commences with review OF the
proceedings on the case, and then says: "Tfe
second cause assigned for error is not insisted
upon by counsel, or in any manner sustained by
the record, and NAV be disposed of without
further comment. With reference to the first
assignment Of error, viz, 'the misconduct of
one of the jurors who tried the CASE il is OBJ
jected by the United States that the point made
Is not tie subject of error, and therefore this
court is without jurisdiction in the mat .er."
"The only change manifested in the
acts transferring the jurisdiction (of the Old
criminal and circuit courts in the District TO this
court is TO be found in the mode of practice
APPEAL "a necessity being substituted for a
writ of error, inasmuch as n court cannot issue
Trit OF error TO itself. The appeal thus Pre-.
vided for, merely instituted q new method by
which the defendant might be heard in error.
IL We are right in this view-and OF it we have
no doubt-the question presented here is simply
"Lether the Judgment OF the justice holding the
CT iminsl court in OyerrUling the motion for
new trlaI Is q proper subjectO Of review in this
court"
Numerous authorities are ouoted on this ouss-
ton. and The opinion proceeds as follows -
Thus IL Is seen that this court and the courts in
intimate advice and authority over this tribunal
Rave held uninterruptedly the doctrine tn 1t we
are without jurisdiction, Notwithstanding il is
urged, with much ingenuity and painful earnest
ness, that the courts disregard these authorities
ard adopt the conclusions OF the highest tribu-
mails of several OF the states IN their Stead.
The court does not feel at liberty TO 10 it,
without reviewing these authorities in detail, il
may be remerked that many OF them are tha
offspring of local legislation, and 10 not result
in any well defined and definitely settled prin-
clple. Passing from the question of
jurisdiction without further comment, it is due
TO candor for the court to say that had the
motion been properly made to this court, had
we the power to determine it, we should have
been compelled to decide as did the court below"
in support of the motion, that one of the Jurors
being sworn touching his fitness as Juror in the
case, and having declared he was without bias
OF prejudice, and that he had not formed an
opinion, was accepted and sworn as juror; that
subsequent ID the rendition OF tue verdict AFT
davits were made by one Potter and one Evans
tending to show that previous to the trial the
same juror had declared to them that the court
and jury would convict them all; that WOOD
would share the same fate as Notwithstanding
to Jenkins who had shortly before bee con
ylCte1 murders. led
by the affidavit OF the juror, and by the furthe-
affidayits Of eight witnesses that Potter and
EvsDs were not worthy of belief under oath.
In its light il will be seen that the claim of the
Defendant was that the juror had said that the
defendant would De tried aud would meet the
tate OF jenkins, asserting what would be done
rather than what he would do-making a doubt
iul claim in itself considered, and a new trial
IN the light of the contradictory and impeaching
testimony more than do btful.
1t follows that the appeal should be and is
dismissed"