The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1874-06-25

Monday forenoon there was considerable
excitement in and about the District Court
room. The motion for new trial in the
Carney Scott case was up for hearing. and
this is what caused the comDo;ion. 1t will
be remembered that this case, involving The
gayment of SIS. 900, was brought sgainst
Lucien Scott BY Thomas Carney. tried few
weeks ago before 9. A. Singleton, judge pro
tenn, and verdict rendered for the plain
tifi, in the sum above named. The suit was
for the recovery of the value of certain Ais-
souri, River Z. &. bonds, which Carney had
delivered to Scott. In presenting their rea-
sons why new trial should be granted, the
defense introduced an affidavit sworn to BY
Beverly Sarcey, one of the jurors in the
case, Shich SGT forth that the s.i Sarcey, on
The 18th iost., and while the jury was out in
the jury room celebrating upon their yer.
dict. left The jury room, accompanied by the
bali6. or other officers Of the court, and
went II the saloon Of A. Cross, on Fifth
street, and there procured bottle of whi.ky,
with which he returned to the jury room,
and that the beverage was not only partaken
of by himself, but BY L. F. Goddard, one of
the juror, while celebrating on the verdict
in the above mentioned case. B. sides this
sfhdavit, the defense introduced two Others.
one sworn to by Goodsrd, that the whisky
was in the jury room, and The other BY Crosr,
teAifying to the sale of the liquor to Sarcey.
The counsel for the plaintiff at once went to
work to get up other affidavits rebutting the
statements made. Co.'s and Goddard mod
flied their statements to the eject that while
whisky had been scld and taken to the jury
room, il was not to their r. recollection in this
caae, but prior to it. Nine of the jurors
also s1ore to an affidavit that
they eaw no liquor in the jury room; that
1t the time mentioned Ssrcey did not leave
the room long enough to obtsin the whisky
- stated, bat admitted that while they were
celebrating on the verdict, Sarcey lay on
the floor Of the jury room part Of the lime.
They affirm that the bailiff did his duty
while In charge of the jury and did not 20
with Sarcey for the whisky ss affirmed IN
the first affidavit. Dozens Of osheB AFFIDAVIT
were offered as rebuttal TO thofe introduced
BY the defense, bat We have not the epace to
mention them. Btsides this attemps to i'm
peach the character and action of the jury,
the defense aimed some of their afidavits
at Judge Singleton who occupied the bench
pro ten, and under whom the case was 6rst
tried. One of these afidavits sworn 70 by
the defendant charged him With gross error
in his charge to the jury and in relation to
the amount of the damages. and the other
makes . statement to the effect that Judge
Singleton was heard to remark that
be would under no Conditions WHIST
ever grant the motion for . new trial.
To this lsst charge the Judge promptly re-
sponded that the man who gave utterance to
such statement was . liar and he would
like to meet him On that Issue. He ex-
pressed his intention to give fair and i'm
partial decision in the case, no matter what
might turn up. The wranele on there afk-
davits and charges occupied the whole lore
noon, and was the mot disgraoeful affair
that ever orept into the record Of tie Dis
trict Court. Such is the opinion freely ex-
pressed Of the majority Of the attorneys
present. Tie motion for new trial vas
overru.ei and the case will now probsbly Re
carried up to the Supreme Court for settle
ment. The matter has created considerable
talk among the le.a fraternity and Is every
where denounced ~ q most unwarraDtable
and disgraceful action.