New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-19
CO,rPSr OF TIE COUNSEL.
JUDGE VoEni-'s PRE- 'ENTlTIoN OF ThE cAs1
AGGi'lsHrs or Mr. LyAETs AID MIR. BLA

JrpGF ,rogRi-'s PRE- ;ENriTIoN OF TIE CASE
.rn!.,l.NrS OF ME. EyARTS AID MIR. BLACu
COXrEAsrED.
TO the razor Of the Tribune.
SIR: The address of Judge Morris to the
rry would not have been tolerated in any court in New
England In oar courts tae opening statement should be
simply presentation of the matters to be investigated
and general oninc OF the evidence TO be offered III BE-
half OF the plaintiff IN this stage of TIE ease 1t Is not al
wc for counsel to state in detail or to READ what
may or may not he admissible in e.ince when offered
and ticn to argue from IT, Judge Morris Gd. day alter
day II was surprise ~ tho profession mere that siich
proceeding should be permissible under yclr code.
The closing argumcnts for the defendant were III
striking contrast but OF marked ability. Mr. Evartss
WAS an admirable specimen Of clear analysis OF the cv
drnce of sound, fal ana cogcnt reasoning ana OF eg
innate appeal. Possibly GONE paris were 100 lhVoNed
and elaborate for an average New sl"nd jury. The
argument probably intended not for the jury only
hut for the best reasOn,Is ami tIe most hlShy cWNa"
minds in the land.
Tho are.un mt OF Mr.. Beach, so far as It WIS al
argument must have eqal!cl, and perhaps surpassed
the LII chest expeditions oi hs ainrcrs But 1t WAS ai
parent Ia every Discriminating reader OF the evidence
an 10 every atcntiv obs OF the proceedings ~ the
trial, Lit intelligent jury could render Veld't Tor
The plaintiff All that could he done was To pr vent an
agreement OF jury. 20 this end, ana Ia excite tho
predices and passions Of the ba,cst men against the
defendant and TO de 1ale him in pubic estimation
much OF Mr. Bcaths address was not an argument
but a violent hirangue based upon out'ide
matters. not in evidence. do not think that
COUNSEL In any other state than York, woul have
been loved read state in his closing address To
the jury pretended real extracts from tne writings
rcc,c. of Il Defendant not presented III evidence under
tae grise Of uar MS OF hs argument when they dill
lot tend Illustrate it at ALL bat evidently miro
dncc purpose of creatirg in Tie Hry and through
out the country prejudice against him, ani after intro
dncing such pretended extracts nany OF holn Sashled
undfgi and .s- statements about other clcrynen not
adj, Farcd, Pomcroy, Avery, and kaoch, he val'cr-
Nj ned t. argue ioni tAcm just thou The! were
portions o. the evidence.
II sucil roccedgs and the outrageous assaults upon
the jury allowable undr the the New YORK cod, IN
code sHOdd Ice changed. The attacks upon le jrIy in
the closing argument. ilei4dlng me public assertions he
tie jury tat L. had proofs 10 sustain item are ln
pIcccicH'c N ull ial pr0ce din5s jurors nave rights
well "a 9th ~ citizens, aid they were tr'mpc under
loot A. he 1Hd - siacl 10 tOiisfl hdl he cnud pc
sent his All I's after th0 triai end \, and he Wud
plni. the u, and a. We have not 20 ard ~ the ain-
W.T. since @ a'T Inference l. that there was no iounda-
Il - .wh.tcycr to. tn Aarsss
Tie publication of the false aidayIts Of Loader an
P.lcc. AM Inc proceedings touching thc ia'irii ictc
OF a desire - reopen TIC ca,c 10 mtodic lnenl are m
Ia; IOny with the ether attempts 10 destroy tAe in-
ap Ana tlio-' al iNitS had btc1 read BY thr jury
their .i- hood slpail have bct a communicated 10 icn.
f. is IN t0 prcrnl tat tir jury HO, influence
thereby ~ j. lp s-J!r tn. II s.Out have been ether
Thc !an' rs cou5 IN iusiic" To Themselves, }:
innocent. siOu1 laye permit. 1 Il; aud # tLey refused,
iAc JI! oinid haNr t' called ~ i-t!c motion 40 1c-
open he caN' have it'n publicly Er"nt.i
lee pr.cec' A-s aty. commended uppn IRA wei cal
en- ttet 1" bras JGl'rai lrD.cclliss mt con-" APt
wish add hai inc order ., dr-un,ns in Acw iOiA and
ia NcwinclAnd il objectionable, ANA Hcrrni from tho
Odcr IA come oi"rr sidts Ii" closing a'shmrIt l"f
inc plgiui should ~ n'.c irH "n ihc Argument Tor
defendant with f.ht for reply by piaintIh-Du, only IN
stIIct reply. the time VIII probably come vixen tir
a cn,i Df al tue Jurors viii not Dc lrilui cd iur iic
rendition OF 4 verdict Many cases are Lsd by judges,
-lcil Ia equity, an upon Icror of me evidence
ami nlnnify their drcisoIs, either O law or tact,
Required; ana there 10 less ior requiring
Cnalnlfy on lle part jurors. 49,
LOstJR, july II, 1870.