The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-05

the jury by public excitement.
REPLY OF Mr.. BEACH.
Mr.. Beach insisted that the Court and himself
were bound to look at the matter IN its legal light
alone. 1t was no wonder that Mr.. Stokes counsei
should only his sad condition; and II that only
were locked at there was danger that the rignts
OF public justice and the necessity or pubic pro-
lection would be forgotten. He Should not follow
the counsel through all his quotations The statute
law and presidents Of this State governed this
Court, and the decisions of other States and OF
England were merely advisory. Most OF the prece-
dents cited were from States where the
Court OF Oyer and Terminer was held to have
general Jurisdiction. In this State 1t had been
held even by one judge that the Court OF Oyer
and Terminer had power to grant new trial
on the merits, and . dispute had arisen between
parts OF the Supreme Court till settled against the
right by the case Of Quimbo Apo. He saw no
reason why the aRalogies between beth grounds
for setting aside judgment, on the merits and for
irregularities, should permit the one and not the
for then 1t could grant new trial on
either ground, but OF special and limited powers,
commented on one the case Of wins vs. The People,
and argued that Judge Deni0s opinion in that case
was not authority ON these points and criticised it
measure inapplicable to the circumstances and In
other respects not sustained by the cases it cited
he prOQuCeO CluatlOQS LndL the COuTt COuIu
not hear anadavfts either Of jurors or Of jurors
speeches to impeach their verdict. He argued
that to do 80 would enable Q juror who had
yet to commit such Irregularities for the sake
of prisoner as to impair his verdict. Was such
a TO Ss ao
OF third persons were always suspected by the law,
because OF the difficulties OF accurate memory. In
jurors themselves, and those contradictions were
here produced. He insisted those corrections
were to be received with the highest trust; Tor DIFF
most intelligent and Christian men for jurors.
The compliments Of the defence to the jury he,
had no doubt were honest and well deserved,
and the very Jurors now assailed were those who
had shown the most sympathy with the prisoner.
He urged that the adavits as to the action OF the
jurors after their eInpanelling should be ex-
Plunged He admitted that previous to the present
jury law previous expression OF opinion would
have disqualified them, though he did not admit
that the aldavits presented to show that they had
expressed opinions, as explained made them unit
even under the older law, but the new law clearly
took away any undtness on this account. 1t was
said that law was unconstitutional. He had sup
posed that the provision OF the State consttu-
referred to the general constitution of the jury
and not to the method OF its constitution.
That did b, not e for Fna
lish. With regard to the other matters he claimed
that Notwithstanding the authority of EastwOod's
the prisoner was bound to make out affirmatvely
not merely that there had been an irregularity on
the part Ola Juror as on examining the place 81
resulted to the injury Of the prisoner. That must
be shown affirmatively by the prisoner and the
prosecution could not be put to the almost impOs-
sible negativing Of the injury by proof He then took
up the cases OF the jurymen separately, and first
Beyea's examination Of pistols It has become I'M
pistol and De COrlie had testified that the pistol he
had received was a different one from the one pro-
Now Beyea was said to have looked at pistol Of
his own to see II q casual glance weud enable him
see Inc nnmoeT Oh "a th IN H. an1 dor me
for setting aside verdict. Was uryman to forget
perience one Of the chief merits OF jurymanS Sup
pose juryman had happened to have pistol In his
POCKET in the jury room and exhibited it, could be
said that 1t was an error in the uryF whole class
OF questions to experts was excluded because the
juryman had the same knowledge. experience
1t was not enough that it was an indiscretion on
the part OF juror; It must be shown that 1t
the Ih SS told anem that
dicted fatty Mr.. Horace Stokes whose devotion to
his brother might easily have misled him.
MIR. Dos Passos reminded him that both Yost
and Mitchell said he communicated this TACT to
them.
OF the jurors had acted dishonesty let HIM give this
nan one more trial and destroy the moral
self a'' decided ed that ' stoses 's" own testimony
showed she Oh him ., TO be legally guilty: But
WHAT eHeCL cOhlu IL nave na0r lie COrue'S teSt1-
mony was simply on that point, 'six barrels as
near recOllect.n In the other points where he
was more positive the distinctions were broad and
gong to the Grand Central Hotel was he conceded,
indiscreet, but he insisted was perfectly innocent
end stokes could naVs
the window he named, and that q carriage could
not have been seen from 1t further on than was
II anything, that was strengthened. II the
people did not complain why should the defence
object with , regard , to Mr. BoW I reading
could simply have been the proceedings and
not editorial comment, as the Court had taken
from comment. As to Mr.. Manchester, he repeated
Mr.. ManchesterB statements OF what he did say to
his partner and that # was in Joke and as proof Of
Arnold's question GLOW about Tweed f'' and an
could not have meant that, for Tweed certainly
was not accused OF any crime for which he could
Mr.. Manchester that Mr.. Tremain after he had
stated his strong opinion, had withdrawn his chal-
lenge or had expressed his pleasure in having him
was not to be set aside on such trivialities.
He came now to o graver question, perhaps,
growing out Of the a6se1ce Of the prisoner during
supposed until reading this case Of Maurer, cited
yesterday, that any waiver OF right other than q
conceded that the opinion Of Justice Grover went
the length claimed by the counsel, but he claimed
that 1t went far beyond the question before the
voluntary, temporary absence sought by the pris-
oner but the prisoner had been remanded to the
jail, and an important essential part Of the trial
had taken place in his enforced absence. So far he
admitted the decision was authority but beyond
that he insisted Judge Growers opinion Obfter
dtctun. Mr.. Beach continued 1T gives me no
pleasure to condemn the conduct OF counsel, whom
i esteem and respect. But sir, whatever may be
my relations with my brethren In my ideas of pro-
fessional duty, never will suffer an example like
this to pass without an expression OF my personal
reprobation. What are the factsP Sworn counsel
OF tins Court one OF them occupying high emf
OF political advancement, which adds to his repu-
tation and dignity; reputable counsel, with q
knowledge Of the law, sit In this Court and permit
their client to be absent from the trial without
the knowledge OF the Court and without advising