Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1876-03-23
Trial of James w. Erwin.

Judge KNOWLES for refusing ac Gang
of venue in the case of the State cs
JAMES W. ERWIN, charged with mur
der in the first degree, as well as hi
fair, square and comprehensive
charge to the jury:
Venue.
The State of Ohio VS.. JAMES w. ERWIN
Murder in lst Degree-Motion fol
Change of Venue.
The defendant, JAMES w. ERWIN, was
indicted at the February term OF the
Court of Common Pleas of this county
A. u. 1872, for murder in the lst de-
Gree. for killing his son-in-law. At the
| AnriI term thereafter, he was tried on
said indictmentin said Court, and found
guilty of murder in the I'd degree. A
motion for new trial was made on the
ground of misconduct of one of the ju-
rors, and his Honor, Judge Guthrie,
then ON the bench, (properly, as we
think.) set the verdict aside and granted
the defendant new trial.
The cause has been continued once or
more on the application of the State and
also on the application for the de-
PENDANT on what at the time was
claimed good grounds, until a
change was made in the Judges in
this subdivision, by resignation and
appointment, so that one or more of the
appointees was disqualified from trying
the ease, having been employed as cOun-
sci or otherwise interested in the case.
Unfortunately, as a matter or expense,
QOr such cases are necessarily attended
with great expense, on account of the
number of jurors required under the
statute to be summOned), several We
nires have been issued and preparations
made at different times TO try the cause
in good faith, no doubt, by tile officers of
the State, sRpposing the case could be
tried, but " hich at each time resulted in
a continuance, till finally motion was
made by defendants counsel to change
the place of trial, upon the ground that
such was the prejudice against the de-
political and otherwise, that Il
fair and impartial trial could not be
had in the county of Gallia. This mo-
tion was made under the 12lst section of
the Criminal Code of Ohio, which is rs
"All criminals shall be tried
in the county where the otfense was
unless it shall appear to the
court by atfilavits that fair and impair
tial trial can not be had therein, in
which case, the court may direct the per-
son to be tried in some adjoining cOun-
ty." At the November term of said |
court. A. ID. 1873, after full prepara-
ion for the trial of said cause had been |
made by both parties, this motion came |
,n to be heard before this court, and was |
by 4 large number of aflida- |
tits and professional statements of conn
el for the defendant, and controyerted |
" counter-afiidavits, and statements on
he other side. The inotionswas ably ar
.ued by counsel on both sides-and this
'ourt, then for reasons given at the
ime, overruled said motion, and appli-
ation was then made to continue said
ause by the defendant, on the ground
# the sickness of material witness for
he defendant, and the cause in the Opin
on of the court, good and sufficient
me, said cause was continued.
This motion is now renewed by the
defendant again at this term, and upon
additional facts, and as counsel claim,
or much stronger reasons than hereto
ore-additional professional statements,
nd on an article which appeared in the
.edger, one of the papers published in
he city of Gallipolis, and of general
in said county, is offered in
upport of this motion; while Oh the
ther side the State has presented the af-
davits of some 30 prominent and re-
pectable citizens of different parts of
he county to controvert the reasons
rma6 hu tha 1Qfan tho aha of
aid trial.
The question is one of grave impor-
ince to the defendant, and serious re-
for the cOurt-as the Leisla-
Ire has left it entirely i'm the discretion
the Judge to say where the trial
iall take place, and important to the ,
efendant because upon the decision
ay depend his liberty, yea, even his
fe. +,
l have felt, and still feel, the serious
devolving upon me, but
le question having been made at the |
lst term of this court, land then more full .
: considered aud passed upon, and now
eing renewed, L am requested to not
My take into consideration the reasons
len urged, but the additional ones now
resented in the renewal of the motion,
nd in so far as the former motion was {
)ncerned and the grounds then urged ;
" the change, l have but to repeat
hat then said, that the afiidavits in !
lpport of the change were statements {
lostly of mere opinion, and mostly of (
ersons residing in that part of the 6
0unty where defendant resides and /
here the crime was committed. The /
statements too were based |
pom matters of opinion coming from in $
ividuals who would not, OH account OF 4
rejudice, be competent to sit rs jurors |
the case, but because such are the oDin- q
ms and expressions of few individ- ,
ais admitting them to be influential /
I'd prominent citizens of the county, |
a jurisdiction where there is popula- f
OH containing between five and six f
ousand qualified jurors, is the court '
lthorlZed to say out of this I
amber of intelligent men, that f
,eiue anprejudiced, uabidsed; true and t
,etHl men can not be found to try man i
ho was scarcely known, heard of, or +
liked about outside of his own town. +
Zip, before the time in which it is al /
ged that he committed the crime; and '
Iere having been no effort made to en-
lnnel a jury, so as to test the question Il
to what extent and degree the Ireju- q
ice prevailed, the court, thea for the i
.asons briefly given, overruled the mo- q
on. +
Two or three additional reasons are ! !
Ow urged-lst, That at the time of the ,
'rmer trial, now nearly four years ago, q
l the evidence in the case was taken !
nd fully published in the two political
lpers, which had wide circulation in
1 parts of the county. I'd, On ae- i
,unt of an article in the Ledger above !
,ferred to. To the first, the court t
ould say, that ample time has been d
ven for reflection and forgetfulness, a
nd if reflection has wrought no change +
: formed no Judgment, then surely the 0
'rce of the reason is much weakened if :
OF entirely destroyed. +
But how about the Ledger article, upon :
hich so much stress is laid? This ar
Gle, signed "Tax Payer" was, no q
Dubt, written by party who may or G
ay not have such prejudice as would :
squalify him from sitting as a juror in f
i'd cause. He may think from what :
e has heard, that the defendant is gull .
!, and yet when put upon oath, and he i