The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1873-08-08

enJeGyCTcd 10 csI out. We also
tyoz r0 special pains TO restrain Gu,
client from full and free conversation
As TO The criminal part taken by hin
IN The killing of Mr. Bensiog. We
tGily relied upon this arrenge menl
with the prosecutor and ais then CO.
counsel, and did not learn that he
was in any wise disposed to depart
from our arrangement until about the
commencement oi this court on the
26,h day OF May. The arrangement
was then denied by the Prosecuting
Attorney, and its iulfllment refused.
We, however, accepted the appoint
meas rendered us by the court, and
hare since been casting about to learn
what may be done to rescue this fool
ish young man from the terrible fate
which now seems so eminent, hO-
pisg and yet relying upon The good
faith OF the prosecution il arranging
as We have before stated. But now,
at this late hour, we are assured by
the prosecution thst our offer 10
plead guilty to murder il the second
degree will not be accepted that
public sentiment demands the trial
and conviction OF the prisoner of
murder in the i;ss degree. We say
20 the court, tina; by reason OF this,
we are whciIy unable at this time
70 prepare and make such defense
- 4 sense Of humanity and Justice 10
/ :he accused demands, aad that We
must and DO IOw ask, OF the court
20 continue tlis csse 10 our mex! term.
We further state, that We believe,
and therefore say, that embarrass-
meuts have been thrown in our way
BY tie prosecution; and by the Sheriff
ri the county, SO that at this term
The prisoner cannot have fair sad
impartial trisl. We further say that
il this Lfiai must proceed Ut this tenn,
and the prosecution still refuse TO
accept our. plea y! murder in the
second degree which we now tender
here, as We have often done hereto
fore, ,aud have been Tesdy - do at all
times since the arrangement which
we have referred to, our duty to our
selves, !; rot 10 our client, should
induce us 10 withdraw from the
te ence and give it into tie hands
OF others who may be more PHI
abie 10 The pretended demands OF
public sentiment. IL tbs stste-
naent We desire TO say thst both hlr.
Blackiold and Mr.. n. ID. Shsier be-
Iieve tie srrar cement 90 made should
he strictly adhered to, and that it Is
not tight TO take advantage o. the
position il which the defense are thus
placed, snd hsve Withdrawn from the
prosecution aGd will have nothing
more TO do with Il. Their statements
thus made. we are reajy to swear to,
if denied, and prove the same by Mr..
Blackiord, who took part in the first
examination, and who was One Of the
prosecution who made the arrang-
meHt referred to
HENRY Brown,
4. Is. SHAFEE,
Attorneys for Jacob Gartee.
July 81, 1873.
This motion, after long delay, was
oyerruled by the court
The defense then asked the court tor
commission to take the depositions
of absent witnesses. The application
was as follows:
/ To the Hon. James Pillars. Judge Of the
| Court OF Com mon Pleas, now in session in
the County Of Hancock, and stale Of Ohio
Jacob Gartee, the defendant, in the
action OF the State OF Ohio against
said Jacob Gartee, On an Indictment
Ter murder in the first degree. row
pending in said court, represents that
Susan Kline, of the City OF Philadel-
phis, in the State of Pennsylvania,
Mary Stateler, Of the State OF Michi-
gan, and John +. Gartee of Etna
Green, Kcsciusko county, Indiana, are
all material witnesses tor him en- the
trial OF this action, and without whose
tetimony lie says he cannO. safely pro
ceed to the trial of said action; that
said persons are now, and have been
absent frorn said county and State
ever since the finding OF the indict
ment in this action on the 2Sth day Of
afay, 1873 that said Gartee only
learned OF the materially of what
said Susan Kline and said John Il
Gartee would swear to,On the Sth day
of July. le7s, and only learned of the
materiality OF what said Mary Statele,
would swear to on the 20 il day oi
Juiy,ls7S.
Said Jacob Gartee therefore asks
yoar homer Tor a commission TO be
issued pur uant to law, to examine
said Witnesses upon proper interroga
tiOns to be annexed thereto, and that
all said acts as asked fer may be done
according TO the statute IN relation to
such matters passed by the Legislature
of the State OF Ohio, Nay 9Th, 1859
ard the amendstory act passed ApEi
18th, 1873. jAc GAETEE,
By BRowS & SHAFER, his Attorneys
July 81, 1873.
This was refused by tie court, Il
which defendant excepted.
The cause then came on further t.
be heard upon the impanelling OF 81
Jurors from whom to select a jury o
IL men 10 try this case, as follows;
VIM. Hartman, Geo. Mcclellan
John Croft, Josiah Dunlap, JOSEPH
Thompson, Peter Hos:er, Isaac Mar
shall, Rcbl dOrris, Peter {. Bender
Lewis LuEeack. VIM. Mckinley, U
l.. Ienry, J B. Mann, YIN. PARK
Carson Marshall. Wm. Ecffiyt. Abra
ham Keel, II. Glauner, David Bish
D b. Bseson, Lewis Dukes. ir., Benz
. GrUber, 5. J. Siddali, Geo y, 5. KeI
, ey, G j. Kelley, Il. Il AIb4n, Adam
, Burman, Elias Dienl, JOS. Barnhlll,
, Alex Phillips, Peter Wise, Samue
: Dennis, Abram Teats0rth, David Now
! Ian, Albert Shank, Bsnj. StringtelioS
D a motion was then made by the de
r tense to set aside the whole panel
{ which motion was as follows:
: The state Of Ohio, Is. Jacob Gartee. Indiet
! HIent fog murder in tie firsf degree. in ia
l Court OF Common Pleas, OF Hancock COu1
! ty, Ohio
: ANA new, at this day, to-wit. o.
! the 29th day OF July, a. D, 1873 s
the village OF Findlzy, in ssid county
e came the sad State CT Ohio, as We
I as the said Jacob Gartee, by their re
E apective stlorneys; ami the juror
0 OF the jury impaneled, being sum
u moned, also came snd here upon th
;, said Jacob Gartee challenges the ar
D ray OF the said panel, because b
Z says:
9 l Thst said panel was not summon
u ed and made up according to law b
} the sheriff OF said county.
s That in making up said pam
said sheriff ADVISED with and consulte
q the attorneys OF said State as to whol
ie he should pat in sail panel and sun
'e mons as said jury
Is 3. That said attorneys directed, a