The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-06-21

! cept for some act committed subsequent tC
his having been impanneled. He then read
| authorities to show that the fact that the
man was alien was not good grounds to set
challenge, and that challenge must be
made before the impanelIng of the jury, ex-
cept for some act committed by the juror
while on the jury.
As to Mulvey, he said that the defense
had not laid that the grounds for Objecting
to him as Juror. for they had not shown
that there was John Mulvey. Indeed, all
the facts went to show that there was only
one Mulvey, and that was the one who
served. He read many authorities on the
two points above set forth, and then argued
from them that unless theIe was an error
per Sc in the verdict itself, the defense could
not, by any right, call to have it set aside
In conclusion he cOntended that if the
juror kelly was good az to the five that
were acquitted, he was q good Juror Is to
the three that we're convicted.
MIR. r. HI. Mari
then took the floor to close for the accused
He maintained that the cases cited by the
District Attorney had no bearing ON and
were of totally different nature from the
case of Kelly. An alien might be accepted.
when he was known to be man of NOR al
character and possessed of intellect, and
q .
was an alien would not be instanced: but
here the motion was based on the ground
that the man was guilty of an infamous
crime, and the case was entirely different.
Would any jury in the land render YER
dict on the testimony Of any man convicted
Of such crime as perjury on a mere mat
ter of question of dollars and cents!
No court in the world would take him as
competent witness and yet it was con-
he 10 fn q t$ov
of life and death. He appealed to his Hon
OF as judge of the law, as cOnservatOr of
the peace, to restrain the law and not es-
tablish the precedent that q man whose
acts had deprived him of every right as
citizen, from whom the right to 60 to the
polls, the right to go into court had been
taken for all time on account of his moral
character: could pass on case involving the
lives of Christians and good citizens.
He then took up that portion of the
charge of the Court which told the jury
that they were the judges of the fact alone,
and not of the law.
He was expOunding the law on the sub
ject when the Court ordered recess until
s o'clock.
At
The Appointed Hour
the court re-assembled and Mr. MARI re.
sumed his argument. He quoted decisions
in number. to show that the position of the
Court was erroneous, and went back to the
very foundation Of the jury system, the
Magma Charter.
His address was exhaustive, and, to all
appearances, made great impression on
the court
In his c1pcluding remarks he maintained
stoutly that the jury had the right to judge
of the law and the evidence, as he had
established.
He said the jury system was the palladi.
UNI of liberty, wrested from the crown of
Great Britain by her liberty loving subjects,
and that the Magma Charta was demanded
to shield the subject against the power of
the crown.
He said, further: II hope it will never
be my misfortune to defend any accused
whose convection the United States Gov
eminent hasSdetermined upon, and uses its
power to secure. But there has been such
things in this country. There was court
organized once for conviction, and NO Amer.
raft mentioned without blush of shame.
The whole machinery and power of the
Government was brought to bear againstlthe
helpless woman and when Reverdy John
son came forward to defend her, he was
compelled to retire because Of the pressure
brought to bear against him.
~ have entered into this matter as
have, not because we think your Honor
will abuse power, but on principle; for
decide the law for themselves, you make
them a mere machine, to be ruled by the
judge, no matter how corrupt; and say it
can never be the wish or intention of the
American citizen-Of any people that wish
to be free-tO take from themselves the
right of trial by an untrammeled jury, for
whenever he gives up this ght he sur.
renders himself willing slave to power"
He turned his attention and the attention
idea set forth by Beckwith that it was the
fault of counsel for accused that Kelley had
been placed on the jury, because they had
not used due diligence. He said there can
be no negligence where there is no necessity
for diligence, and the party concerned can
not be held accountable when he cannot
know of the necessity. 1t was the duty of
the United States to call good men to sit on
the jury, and counsel had NO right to sup
pose that convicted perjurer would be
presented as juror.
There is no law to compel cousel for &C.
cused to put such questions as "Have you
been convicted OF perjury, or any other
serious offense9" No court would allow .
Juror to be so Intercepted. The question,
g Are you . citizen Of the United States ~
may be asked, and, if counsel neglects to
do this, they may not successfully urge
that q man is an alien to set aside the YER
dict.
1t was the duty of the men employed by
the United States to choose good and true
men and lawful jurors. Two men on tho
Jury were not good and true men in the
sense of the law. In the words of Justice
Martin, noAe but clean and pure hands
should deal out the law.
The matter was taken under advisement
and will be decided on Saturday next.