New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-31
Court Items.

Judge Atocha yesterday refused the ap-
known as "Kinch,' for change of venue.
The application was based on the allega-
ton that the community had become preju-
diced against him. Several witnesses were
examined, among them Judge Walker and
Paul Waterman, Esq, who testified they
had written articles rather derogatory to
the said Kinch. Arguments were heard,
and Judge Atocha said that a man
of intelligence might be a juror on
a case where he was prejudiced
against the character of the accused
and yet be able to render verdict accord
ing to the law and the evidence. He re-
ferred to the case of Johnny Snapper, tried
before Judge Howe in the First District
and strongly that he had a prejudice
against Snapper, but that he could 20 into
the jury box and render verdict accord
ing to the law and the evidence. He was
challenged for cause, and the court refus-
ing to allow the challenge the point went
to the Supreme Court on an exception, and
the ruling was sustained. Under that rul-
ing Judge Atocha refused the change of
venue.
This decision was not only CO rrect, but
it will work no injury to the distinguished
Kinch. He will obtain fairer and more
impartial trial in this parish than in any
other where our system of jury drawing
has not been established. He may think
the community rather prejudiced against
him. and no doubt 1t is anxious to get rid
of him, but if his case raises a reasonable
doubt, there is no jury in the State that
will be more likely to allow him the beneti,
of it than the one he will face next month
In the case of the State VS.. BARLEY Col
Inns and Pat Jones, convicted of breaking
and entering, ETC., Judge Atocha granted
a new trial. The main evidence in the east
was the confession of Jones, and this it was
alleged had been extOrted from him. Al
the trial this was alleged by several parties
and one of the prosecuting officers admit
ted that it had been obtained by improper
inducements. Under these circumstances
new trial was proper to be granted. Thi
does not affect the question of the guilt o.
innocence of the accused, and Immediately
after granting new trial the Judge in
creased the amount OF bail.
The somewhat notorious Thorn as Malloy
whose shop is No. 70 Tchoupit oulas street
has filed a strange petition in the Superior
District Court. He and his wife have beer
several times arrested on affidavit 8 charg
ing them with receiving stolen goods. L
was in consequence of these arrests tina
the board dismissed Mr.. Malloy from the
police force No mention OF these facts are
made in the petition, however, whi ch al
leges that he wants his pay, and hasn't had
tair trial on his dismissal It's the frs
time he las been known to be anxious for q
trial of any kind, for on the etolen goods
cases he was never ready. A nolle prosequ
was entered in them the other day, and he
was dismissed. This dismiss al he has made
no complaint about and probably never
will. In his petition he alleges the board
carried off lot of quilts and spoons and
wants about ninety dollars for them. When
he and his wife were arrested on the charge
Of having stolen goods, enough stuff was
carried up to the recorders court to stock a
country store. But he doesn't charge fol
them. What has become of them9 We
think his suit against the board will fail.