New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-06-21
VOLUME vIlI-NO. e3.
THE GRANT PARISH PRISONERS.

| VHE CHANT PARISH PklSONkhSs
The Rule for n New Trini.
The rule for new trial taken in the case
of HadnOt, Cruikshank and Irwin, was ar
gued this morning in the United States
| Circuit Court, Judge Woods presiding.
MIR. Mari filed uu,ac pro tune exceptions
taken by him during the course OF the trial
| IN relation to certain testimony. He also
| filed additional grounds on the motion for
new trial, stating that the facts contained
therein had come to the knowledge OF
counsel subsequent to the filing OF the
original motion.
District Attorney Beckwith objected,
| urging that he was taken by surprise. no
notice OF the matter having been given
him.
Judge Woods allowed the paper to be
filed.
The substance of the exceptions and OBJ
jectiOns is to the effect that the Jury were
allowed to separate alter having been i'm
paneled, and that the charge of the court
was Of such nature and purport as was
calculated to mislead the jury as to their
rights and duty.
The district attorney insisted on counsel
for defense making affidavit that they
knew nothing Of the facts against the ju-
rOrs Kelly and Mulvey prior to the trial.
Counsel made affidavit and Mr.. Whitaker
opened argument on the rule, by introducing
the record in the case OF Timothy Kelly alias
John Hanly, convicted of perjury in the
summer of 1866.
After some legal sparring, the books OF
the First District Court were sent for to
prove the record. Pending their arrival the
witnesses were examined.
Colonel William Roy was the first on the
stand. He knew Kelly; knew him in the
army; had seen him on the jury in the Grant
parish case.
Mr.. Emile Ruiz stated that he knew
Kelly, the man in court in 1866. Witness
was deputy sheriff in 1866; saw Kelly in the
Parish Prison; knew he was tried for per-
Jury; knew that he went to Baton Rouge,
destined for the Penitentiary.
Charles Chalmus was deputy sheriff in
1866; in substance corrObOrated the testi'
mony of preceding witness.
E. Wood Perry testified that in 1866 he
knew Timothy Kelly; saw him in the
First District Court in 1866; he was on
trial for perjury; witness was foreman of
the Jury that passed on the case; the YER
dict was ''guilty;" the Kelly convicted is
the same man in court.
Mr.. A. Peyroller said that he prosecuted
Kelly, the man in court, in 1866 for perjury;
he was convicted and sentenced.
Mr.. Alfred De Armas said that he was one
Vi Vuc WIZ COAfACVOu molly, oVNAN
not swear that the man in court was the
same, but was morally certain of it.
Joseph P. Mulvey said that he passed for
John Mulvey, because a cOlored man named
| Flowers told him it was all right; that he
| was the man meant; that ne (FlOwers) had
| given his name to the commissioners.
Judge Montamat was clerk of the First
| District Court in 1866 Recognized the man
Kelly, in court, as the man who had been
nod for nnPyN NM
| Mr.. Soubiey, bailiff of court. said that on
sundry occasions the jury separated, some
| through fear, gong out at time while the
| rest remained in the room; never knew
them to leave unaccompanIed: never knew
| them or any of them to 90 out early in the
morning; an entrance could be effected to
| the jury room through the window facing
| the street without the knOwledg ge of the ba
| lifts.
| Messrs. Turbler, Huey and Raymond. ba
| lifts in charge of the jurv, corroborated the
testimony of Mr.. Souoley regarding the sep
/ aratiOn of the jury.
| Mr.. Quinn. deputy clerk First District
| Court testified that the records, which had
| in the meanwhile arrived. contained the
minutes of the case of the State vs.. Kelly
| alias Hanley, and with this witness con
| cluded the evidence.
Mr.. Whitaker then read the record of the
case from tie minute book Of the First Dis
| trict Court, also the names of the jury tina,
! served and the witnesses for the State
| wherein it was set forth that one Timothy
Kelly, alias John Hanley. was on the
twenty-third day Of July, 1866, found guilty
| of perjury and sentenced to FIVE years i'm
| prisonment at hard labor in the State Peni
Tertiary and pay costs, and brought the
original papers in the case to substantiate
the statements of the witnesses.
| Mr. Eock with then urnGupaG o. cOnv of a
reprieve issued by Governor Wells Janu-
| ary 10, 1867 containing the prOviso that
Kelly would be released conditionally on
| his giving bond in the sum of $500, and
| subject to the approval of the Senate.
Mr.. Beckwith then filed the affidavit OF
Joseph P. Mulvey, who therein stated tha:
he was summoned under the name of John
Mulvey to serve as juror, and that he
| was convinced he was the man alluded TO-
| as he is the only person of that name re
siding In the neighborhood of No. 4S Wash
| ingtOn street.
Mr.. Whitaker said that the defense de-
| pended mainly on the arguments of Mr.
| Marr, and that in view of this, and because
| of his ill-health. he would only go over the
| case and give the authorities on which the
! defense relied, 80 that the district attorney
| might be fully warned.
| On the ground in the rule that the yer.
| dict was not according to the evidence, he
would not review the evidence, because his
| honor, in his charge, had declared the fact
| that he had given strict attention to 1T.
There was no testimony that even tended
| to or touched the allegations that these ac-
cused had conspired to prevent Alexander
Tillman from voting. The only testimony
that touched on that point was that Alex.
ander Tillman had voted and was not
molested. There was no testimony to show
that these accused had any knowledge OF
the fact, if such it be, that Alexander
Tillman had voted or intended to vote.
1t required great stretch of Imagination
to say that because man had been killed,
he had been killed to rob him of the right
of suffrage.
He then turned his attention to Timothy
Kelly and laid down the la " relating to the
qualification Of jurors. He said it was not
necessary for the defense to 60 as Tar az
they had in showing that Kelly had actual
ly gone to the Penitentiary. Referring. to
Mulvey he said the point made was that
only one Mulvey could sit on the jury, and
that was John Mulvey. No other Mulvey
could serve. He quoted authorities to
maintain his position. As to the ground
that the verdict was not rendered In ac.
cordanee with law, Mr.. Whitaker begged
leave to call the attention of the court to
the fact that the verdict as orally rendered
contained recommendation to the mercy
of the court, and that in the written verdict
this recommendation was omitted.
Respecting the supple mentary charge to
the jury, Mr.. Whitaker contended that the
court had no right to take notice of the
communication unless counsel were present.
The re-reading of a certain portion OF the
charge of the court to the jury was not
calculated to throw additional light on any
point concerning which information had
been asked.
Mr.. Beckwith then responded. Before