The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-06-21
THE GRANT PARISH PRISONERS
THE RULE FOR A NEW TRIAL

| OF daunOt, CruIKsn8uk anu lrWlu came o.
this morning before Woods, judge OF tn
Circuit Court
Mr.. Mari asked leave to file some add
tional grounds-mere matters of fact, to be
proved Dy the officers of the court; or no
at all.
Mr.. Beckwith expressed himself az bein.
surprised at this, and objected to the film.
of the paper on the ground that he should
| have had some notice of the matter before
hand.
Woods allowed the paper to be filed.
They were to the effect first, that the jury
had been allowed to separate after having
been impanneled and having the case under
consideration; and, second, in substance
| that the charge of the Court was of q ma
ture calculated to mislead the jury as to
their right and duty.
Beckwith insisted ON an affidavit from
counsel for defense, to the effect that they
were not aware of the facts alleged against
the Jurors, Kelly and Mulvey, before the
trial.
The affidavit was made, and Mr.. Whit.
aker took the floor to open the argument
on the rule.
He commenced by reading the rule.
He then introduced the record in the
case of Timothy Kelly, alias John Hanly,
convicted Of perjury in the summer of 1866.
Mr.. Beckwith objected to the introduc-
ton on the grounds that the papers were
not certified copies of the record.
Mr.. Whitaker said he had the original
record.
Mr.. Beckwith argued that there was no
proof that it was the original, or that il
was complete.
The minutes of the First District Court
we're sent for to prove the record, and while
awaiting the return of the marshal dis.
patched for them, the examination of wit
nesses was gone into.
Col VIM. Roy
was the first on the stand. He knew VIM.
Kelly; knew him in the army. Had seen
NJ. e. 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 perjury. Knew that
he went to Baton Rouge, destined for the
Penitentiary.
Chas. Chalmez
was Deputy Sheriff in 1866, in substance
corrObOrated testimony of preceding wit
ness.
e. Wood Perry
testified that in 1866 he was juror in the
First District Court. Knew Timothy Kelly.
Saw him in the First District Court in 1866.
He was on trial tor perjury. Witness was
The verdict was guilty" The Kelly CON
victed is the same man in court.
MIR. Penrolles
said that he prosecuted Kelly, the man in
court, in 1866, for perjury. He was convict
ed and sentenced.
tAlfred de Armas
said that he was one of the jurors who con-
victed Kelly; could not swear that the man
in court was the same, but was morally GER
tain it was.
Jos. p. Mulvey.
the intelligent juror who was 80 Obliging
as to pass for John Mulvey, said that he did
30 because q cOlored man named Flowers
told him it was all right that he was the
man meant that he (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 tried, convicted
and &c ntenced for perjury.
MIR. Soluble,
bailiff of court, said that on sundry occa
sions the jury separated, some three or four
in the room. Never knew them to- leave un.
accompanied. Never knew them or any of
them to go out early in the morning. An
entrance could be effected to the jury room
through the window facing the street with
out the knowledge of the bailiffs.
Messrs. Tubden, Heny and Raymond,
bailiffs in charge of the jury, corroborated
the testimony Of Sonble, regarding the sep
aration of the jury.
MIR. Quinn.
Deputy Clerk of the FIRST District Court,
Unidentified the record as tie true and
original record of the court.
Mr.. Whitaker then submitted the record
in the case, including the minutes of the
court.
He then proceeded with his argument.
He said that the defence depended mainly
on the argument of Mr.. MARI, and that, in
view of this, and because of his ill health,
he would only 60 over the case, and give
the authorities on which the defense relied,
80 that the District Attorney might be fully
warned and prepared.
On the ground in the rule that the YER
dict was not according to the evidence, he
said that he would not 60 very deep into
review of the evidence, because his Hon.
or" in his charge had disclosed the fact
that he had given strict attention to 1t. He
said there was no testimony at all that even
tended to, or touched the allegations that
these accused had cOnspired to prevent
Alexander Tighlman from voting.
The only testimony ELECTED on the
point at all, was that Alexander Illghm8n
had voted, and was not mOlested. There
was no testimony to show that those &C.
cused had any knowledge of the fact, if
such it be, that Alexander Tilghman had
voted or intended to vote. 1t took great
stretch of imagination to say that be-
cause man was 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 law and the Con-
stitHtion. regulating the qualifications of
Jurors, He said that it was not necessary
for the defense to 60 as far as they had,
and show that he had actually gone to the
Penitentiary. The fact, Of course, was all
that was needed.
The point relating to Mulvey was then
taken up, and ON this Mr.. Whitaker said
that there was only one Mulvey who could
properly cit upon the jury. and that was
John Mulvey. No other Mulvey could do it.
He then gave the authorities on the subject,
of which there were many.
As to the ground thst the verdict was not
rendered in accordance with the law, he
said he would only call the attention of the
Court to the fact that the verdict. as orally
delivered. contained q recommendation to
the mercy of the Court; and this did not
appear on the written and recorded verdict.
As to the additional charge to the jury,
Mr.. Whitaker commended that the court
had no right to take notice of the communi-
cation from the jury except in the presence
of counsel; that counsel for defence were
not present, and knew nothing of it, and
that the action of the court in re-reading
portion of its charge was not calculated to
give the jury any additional light or infor-
-