, 1873-06-01
LAWYER LEARY.

Judge Tree Grants a New Trial he.
cause OF the Improper Taking OF
h. Ev1dcnce~--A Rather Personal Re.
III view Of the circumstances,
Judge Tree in the Criminal Court yesterday,
decided the application for new trial Of D. J.
Leary. He decided as follows:
Tbs defendant LesEywas tried during the presen.
term Of tho court for the crime Of forgery The
ticular act charged against him in this Indictment ii
the alteration Of Judgment note execaed and deiyer
day after date insesd of after date
originally written. The chief Witnesses tho
Of Of s he ns sna Bs. ~se IT,
messed Its execution, both Of whom sgore posi-
lively that the note Was written zone year" Il the
time Of the execution and delivered to Leary, At the
close OF the evidence no insucons were asked Of the
Court either side, and the submitted to the
jury without argument The result Of their deibera-
lions WAS the conviction Of the defendant. motion
for new tEial was entered On behalf Of the defend
ant, and Il Eaa this motion which the Court ia now
is not too much to say that IN respects the
is remarkable. The defendant is lawyer by pro
his Familiarity viii proceedings IN courts Of justice,
the necessity Of Diligence in the employment Of conn
ss and the preparation for Defense and yet 80
y little appreciation did ha seem to have OF the
awful position IN which he stood, with charge In
pending oyes him which, 4 1t resulted IN conviction,
his days that it VAS not until the very hour of his
trial that one Of his counsel retained to defend
MIN. and the other one es WIS eoleniy stated to the
impossible {oI him to make himseH acquainted with
ths Inv and the facts bearing on the caee. =.
Equally singular Is the odense which he has been
convicted Of having committed in view Of the fact IT
his eeiog lawyer The slightest reading Of the law
9aa tha t 9 ss =; The b ds It which
%saIs egs5sd On the Pa, t Of The
IN this manner, and actually entered Judgment On
It. The Judgment was vacated by the Court which en-
tered IT, 6ucn cunduct On The part Of the defendant
IN hA In.
uorant Of tho most familiar rules Of Law and common
sense Or else there arc some facts ahont the 1nsac
ton which get undeveoped- There are several
grounds urged why trial should be granted but
only deem 1t necessary to consider one of them On
ths defense he copy o. Whist by prima facte evdenca
WIS proven to be copy, OF an adavitmade By Swan
son, md fled By him on the motion TO set aside the
note which IL alleged to have been altered by Leary.
The copy admitted after tho defense had laid the
q
blank and that Was filled out afterxard by leary,
who made it payable one day after dats, when he
date. It il Obvious g. hat Til testimony
important to the defendant. the statements in
the 3 we're trne then they M desed
which was to the effect that the note was entirely hled
up at the time he executed It and delivered to the
acting attorney for swanson had drawn this al-
ozT1t. The Court thereupon permitted the prnsecu-
on TO recall The witness Swanson and, unaer the OBJ
lection OF the defendant to AK him II At the time he
6sgnedhe affidavit he understood that it made him say
that the note was not ed up at the time 1t signed
BY him. His after reflection, natisded, error.
II could have been shown TINT the witness did not
understand the English language that he could not
read. snd hat was not read to him. then the question
perhaps rould haVe been proper but not otherwise.
person who can read, and possesses common 1nteni-
genes, and who solenn1y sweats to q written state
1nent cannot be permitted to into court Of Jug
tics and that he did not understand what he waa
sHeardng TO even In civil csse, and, oro3 ha can
not do 10 in . criminal one.
an not ahle to eay that the statements Of SWANSON
with reference to whether not he understood th9
Affidavit, did not influence the action Of the jury.
1t Is apparent from the verdict that the jury were
not altogether clear that the conclusion which tbey
arrived the safe under the circumstances be-
'ausa theg attach to It = recommendation Of the de-