The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-15
The Sword Of Justice Hangs
by a Single Hair. +
THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS DENIED
Judge Beafdman's Decision in Full-All the
Objections Reviewed and Dis
ba posed Of Ssriatim.
WHAT WILL JUDGE DAVIS Doa
Stokes Interviewed in the
TOmbS.

Stokes Interviewed in the
TOmbS.
There have been saturnalia Of murders of late,
which, in their separate degrees as to the sayers
and their victims, might be classified as belonging
particularly to the higher and lower classes, but all
leading to the same inevitable result-trial, con-
viction and sentence and the subsequent appeal
for mercy. Too late the criminal after dealing the
murderous blow, or. with fatal precision, aiming
the deadly missile which deprives Of fe-the victim
of, revenge, insane jealousy or drunken frenzy
learns that the law which he derided and deemed
impotent to avenge Is Nemesis he cannot escape
from evade. Too late he learns that the days OF
immunity from punishment for murder passed,
that hanging is not altogether played out and then
comes the employment OF all the machinery OF the
law, Its qups and quibbles its delays and intrica
ces and the final supplication for mercy to the
Executive, and the reaction from the murder
er's spirit that lies in wait for vengeance and the
craven spirit that entreats for pardon complete.
This Is the terrible reaction which results from
Imprisonment within bolts and bars, and the de.
graded crowd that boot him rom the moment
he leaves his prison till he is returned to it, and
the court room OF curious, staring faces and the
Judge and the jury, his counsel and his weeping
friends-each day dreadful phantasmagora which
follows the awakening from the crime to its terri
BILE consequences. All this is, no doubt, more ap-
paling to the unfortunate man not yet bereft of
manly courage than the few neeting moments he
stands upon the gallows and which intervene be-
tween him and eternity. GaTney, executed at Buffalo
yesterday, passed through this preliminary ordeal,
and yet he dreaded more than mortal mind can
tell the moment that was to end all retrospection
OF an unhappy past, and declared that he would
wish for life though 1t were to be spent from his
youth upward In dungeon. This Is, no doubt, the
feeling with some OF the condemned men now
under sentence in the Tombs. How their appeals
to law and to the Executive may be sustained
have yet to be determined. In the case of Stokes.
as VIII be seen from Judge Boardman's decision,
the bill OF exceptions is denied. This. however,
leaves the question before Judge Davis, of the
Supreme Court, yet undecided as to writ of error.
Should Judge Davis deny the writ, then it may be
concluded that any further appeal to the courts
will be useless and, as In the OF Foster, the
Executive clcmency must be appealed to as o
deTnfer resort.
At twelve O'Clock yesterday Judge Ingraham en-
tered the Court OF Oyer and Terminer aud took
seat on the bench. Soon after Mr.. Dos Passos, one
Of Stokes counsel followed, and addressing Judge
Ingraham, SAID, ~ understood you would announce
Judge Boardman's decision in your private rooms
Judge, Ingraham-No; will In the Court where
the trial took place. t
Then, slowly untying large parcel Of papers, he
said Judge B0ardman has denied the motion for
new trial."
This caused stir in Court, but 1t seemed to have
been expected. scannell leaned back in his chair
stretched out his legs stroked his red beard. and
smiled contemporary towards the Bench and
around towards the audience.
Mr.. Dos Passos moved that the motion for new
trial be made part Of the record Of the court.
The following is the formal decision OF Judge
Boardman in the application Of Edward S. Stokes
through his counsel Mr.. John r. Dos Passos, for
writ Of error in the bill Of exceptions taken by
Lyman Tremain to his rulings on the second trial
OF the appellant for murder in the first degree.
The following decision by Judge Boardman, which
is adverse to the prisoner, caused the most in
tense excitement throughout the city yesterday
1t was looked forward to with general interest," as
1t was generally supposed that Judge Davis deci-
sion on the motion for stay of proceedings would
greatly depend upon the action OF Judge Boardman
on the bill OF EXCEPTIONS
Anidavits Of jurors are not admissible to
impeach their verdict. The same rule, and for
touching declarations Of Jurors While engaged asd
upon the trial after the rendition of their
Acct &s Sho G vs. wf s sfM IT, sd as nS S9 IS
Chapman, as Barb, 9S; People Vs. Hartung, Park,
ssi %so IN tns psSp d. sc
motion incompetent under these rules are
rejected from consideration. Two grounds of OBJ
the jurors had formed and expressed decided
opinions as to the before they were sworn;
such M sne yo
their verdict. Upon the first OF these points these
jurors upon theT examination under challenge,
declared they had formed and expressed such
opinions but at the same time asserted their
belief that they could render impartial
to them on the trial, aud that such opinions
WOULD NOT BIAS OR INFLUENCE THEIR VERDICT.
Believing such statements to be true they were
allowed to become jurors. Under the act OF May
8. 1872, chapter 475 they were properly accepted.
such an acceptance was not an irreguarity. 1t
right and proper unless that act is uncon-
stitutienal. That Is a question OF law fully pre-
sented by the bill OF exceptions in this case,
error. The afiidavits here presented add nothing
to the objections made on the trial to the COM
potency Of the Jurors jurors, referred TO. They simply
ted and the question in the end turns upon
THE coNsrITUroNALrTY OF THE LAW OF 1872,
which was recognized as valid upon the trial, and
to which ruling the prisoner has an available ex-
ception. Upon the second point the afiidavts show
Central Hotel, the scene Of the homicide, during
the trials that Mr. Beyers another Juror, looked at
his pistols apd at 70 he s OF
chambers to be casually seen and determined and
that Mr.. Bolles, third Juror was seen with
DAILY PAPER IN HIS HAND,
and said that he had read t-that is, the case as
published in the papers,. While these several
acts indiscreet, the aidavits do not show any
real or possible wrong. II does not appear how by
any possibility the acts of these jurors prejudiced
the prisoner aected their verdict. An injury TO
tho prisoner must be real and established. II Is not
sufficient that 1t may be imagined Us possible. For
In such case
FANCY COULD ALWAYS SUGGEST Suspicious
OF wrong to set aside every verdict, however
honest. But the afdavits OF tile jurors implicated,
except Bolles, show that nothing was seen or done
or said that In any respect Influenced or Modified
their verdict or Judgment respecting the facts
proved on the trial. Such evidence readily over
comes any suspicion that may be Justly excited by
the unfortunate curiosity OF the Jurors. In the