Litchfield enquirer., 1876-01-06
PERSONAL.


 We append below copy of the circular recently sent by us to the jurymen in the Thebo case. e.tried at the November term of the Superior Court:
 Office of the LrrcHF1E1D ENQUIRER.
 Litchfeld, Conn, Dec. 27, 1875. l
 -EsQ.
 In my issue of December 9th, printed the following regarding case tired here the week before ::
 "Three liquor cases were tried. In the first. against Francis Ihehos the jnry disagreed, juryman re- fusing to assent te conviction. We hear 1t stated that this dissenting juror, MT. s. Marcus Marsh of New Miford in the course of the discussion the jury room, declared that he had once been In a liquor case himself and that he should never agree to verdict of guilty in such case, or used words to that effect. If such were MT. Marsh's views he was guilty of very grave offensc in acting uryman for trial of an indictment of that character
 You were juror in that case, and if, in your opinion my report does Mr. Marsh injustice, 1 shall be much obliged if you will inforyn me wherein it is wrong, so that may make suitable correction. Please answer, this week, as I wish to make the corrections. if any are needed, in my next weeks paper.
 Yours truly,
 tAHi Ia G. A. 'HIcKox, ED.
 
 We have received replies from several of the jurors, have conversed with two of them with reference to MT. Marsh's cons duct in the foregoing case, have examined the files of the Superior court in the case in winch Mir. Marsh was himself prosecut- ed, and make the following corrected statement of facts. ~fG
 On the 29th of Jan., 1856. prosecution was begun against Amos H., Samucl M, and Walter Marsh of New Milford, under the old ''Maine Law" for distilling liquor without license. The parties were arrest cd and tried before Justice Wm. H. Fair child. who bound over Samuel M. and Walter Marsh for trial before the Supe- rior Court. They were tried at the fol- lowing March term of that court. when the jury disagreed. The case remained on the docket till the November term '56, it was nolled. It must have been pretty expensive litigation, the cost taxed in the case being $212,75, twenty-five witnesses tooEAJ AAS AOl6sAO SsoSO Ou tAO 1AoA OCAOLo the justice and nineteen. before the Supe- rior court. The attornies of record were Hall and Sanford for the State i; Hollister, Beeman and Orton for the prisoner.
 On trial of the Thebo case, the jury stood on the first ballot 10 for conviction and two for acqu1ttal. One of the dissen. tients yielded at once. but Mir. Marsh stood out against all the arguments of his fellow jurors and against very clear tes- timony as they considered it. Mir. M's own prosecution was referred to, and most of his fellow jurors were of the opinion from his words and conduct that his action was the result of prejudice against liquor prosecutions and not of a fair considera- ton of the evidence in the case. We judge, however, that, while expressing the most positive determination never to con- sent to conviction in that case, he did not state he would never agree to con- viction in any liquor prosecution. Still, we think we have right to say that a man who had himself been saved from punishment for kindred offence by disagreement of jury, and who so stub- bornly refused to yield to very strong evi- dence, ought never have allowed himself to be sworn for the trial of such case