The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1874-07-01
A NEW TRIAL REFUSED.

w. B. Woods, Circuit Judge, again
returned to the city to render de-
sicion on the motion for new trial.
The Judges decision was quite
lengthy, reviewing the whole case,
law and facts at length. The Judges
decision, in brief, was:
The first seven grounds Of the mo
ton for a new trial are the same.
They charge that the proofs-the ev-
idence introduced did not warrant
conviction on the first sixteen counts
proved no intent to prevent the ne
groes from voting:
There is no material difference be-
tween the evidence as given on the
first and second trials.
(The Judge then reviewed the facts
at great length
AS to the 6, Z, IA and Is counts, it
is claimed by the defense that there
was no proof introduced. However,
the jury could properly draw an in
ference from the facts brought for
ward. Nor, will the court grant a
new trial because there was no proof
on four counts, when there was good
and sufficient proof on the other
twelve. A verdict of guilty on these
counts will not increase the sentence,
and it would be folly to overturn
twelve counts, because there was no
evidence, or little evidence introduced
on four others, that in nowise affect
ed the verdict or sentence.
The eighth ground was that one
Timothy Kelly, one Of the jurors,
was convicted perjurer. No mis-
conduct is charged against Kelly, no
prejudice-hut simply that he was
unqualified There is much differ.
ence of opinion Oh this point; but
the weight of decision seems to be
that disqualification is good ground
for challenge, but not for a new trial.
1t is evident, too, that the counsel
for defense were aware Of Kelly's
disqualification before the rendition
Of the verdict 1t was their duty tC
have informed tie court of these
facts; the case would then have beer
retired, and a new jury empanneled
But, certainly, if the jury is gooe
enough to acquit, as it did Penn and
others; it is good enough to convict
| The ninth ground is that one O.
the juror, by name Joseph j. Null
vey, was summoned by the name Of
John Mulvey, l think the law is plail
that where there is no mistake in thu
identity of the juror, slight differ
ence in the name will be no gooe
grounds for new trial.
The tenth charge is that the Law
was laid down to the jury by thu
, Judge, whereas the jury were judges
of the law as well as of the fact. AT
ter long study of the cases cited an
still more convinced than ever that
!, was right in charging the jury as t.
the law. The authorities on thi
point are numerous.
: The eleventh ground is that tn
J Judge recapitulated the facts to tn
/ Jury. This is so, but when the de
f tense objected, I charged the jur,
3 that they were to pay no attention t.
this.
: AS for the other grounds, they ar
mot founded either on law or fact.
al l Therefore conclude that there j
b no cause for new trial. The pris
! oners have had fair and careful tri
n al before patient and intelligent ju
8 ry; there has been great liberalit
g shown by the prosecution. I, there
n fore, cannot grant new trial.
Il MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT.
The motian in arrest of judgmen
will be tried and decision rendere
, by Justice Bradley to-day, at II \