New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-07
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
TIE TWEED SUITS.
AN EFFORT TO SAVE THE STRUCK JUa'

AN EFFORT TO SAVE THE STRUCK JURY.
In Supreme Court, Circuit, yesterday, before
Judge westbrook the struck jurors and the counsel for
the people aud counsel for william 81 Tweed appeared
Tor the fourth day Mr. Peckham stated that In view OF
the responsibility OF prosecuting counsel that no avoid
a,e tr-crarlty should interfere with the validity OF
verIct and az the same time in view OF the great ex
pense already incurred which would be useless II TINS
Jury were discharged by the quasng OF the panel they
had resolved move TO amend the cernncate OF INC
elisors and the return OF the sherlH by si'er-
ing the "George W." now standing before
the name Of Mr.. Southwick. TO John T.
Judge Westbrook intmated that he had no doubt as TO
HIS power 10 make such amendment, but as ques-
ton Of discretion, right TO amend IL inc ueiohu
ants had not had chance to strike on JOhn u oout-
wicki II might well he that, if his name hau Oeehsoh
The list he would have been the first the defendants
would have struck oil.
Mr. Peckham argued at length that II was not the
name which was important, but the person chosen that
the person chosen stated to be leather merchant
doing business in the Swamp and partner OF JACKSON
e. Schultz. That described the person. There was no
charge of mpartiaty unfaness 1t was admitted oy
the defendants counsel that MI Southwick was an ex
eelent Juror and the only objection was one OF the
unrest technicality He quoted from English cases 70
show the power Of amendment IN q1 stion ha u, t
exercised repeatedly In the case OF STRUCK az '
evidence showed that elher the Defendants cOun5ei
knew, had full opportunity OF knowing wn3n r r1
esors intended select, and who was ant ny george
W. sOuhwIck on their list ana II was 100 Iac ho" " soy
they did not know. ,, 80 ,sro ,,,,
that counsel defendant know that JOn u sou'
wick meant. - Y,sro poo
Both sides appealed to the testimony OF eXJuugc req
body and s. d. BabcOck the elisors, ana hat being
elusive Mr. EdelsOn and Dudley Field VINO Slruck gu
10 names for the defendant made andaVlt uat "nIh
strikng off the they did not know that MI oOu
wick was Mr. Schuz's partner, and ey had knoW J.
they would have struck his name on DaVId DuuinCJ
Field stated that he paid 10 attention 10 these ues'
hut would certainly have struck oil any partner Oh M
Schutz II his attention had been called 10 the matter
ON the other hand aldayits were made Dy i hChl anu
MIR Peckham the announcement OF MI bupVocA ae
10 Mr. Southwicks business relations was mtue mn
The Messrs Field present. and before any VI inc
names had been struck OIL . -. ...o,;o,
Mr. Garter argued at length that the whole oblectlon
wa, a mere technicality The right OF the delen1ahV
WIS not to choose Jury 20 suit him. but to exclude oo
Iectonabe men. The Object of the law was slupy 10
Obtain an impartial Jury. No damage except OF me
most vague aud shadOwy kind was shown as possibly
arising ont OF this mistake, but 10 OOvlate even tt ny
offered his written pledge TO use one or the pahuus
peremptOry challenges to exclude Mr. Sputu"ch uuIss
The defendants counsel should express hereafter WISH
to retain bin. go. -. 18th. .bo
MIR Field said il was Indifferent 10 him whether inc
Dlantis chose and swim III tins sea OF LlgdVh
with their heads a bog and their feet IN net ut nc
hOped no such precedent would be made IOf future
suinblng block The motion was too late aitSf !1c.
had spent three DAYS in arguing traverse whc, II an
amendment was proper, would have been settled ny me
amendments liz rcIrguing the questions aIlVau!
decided Judge WestbrOOk reserved Ills UecIsOn aOuih
ing the case 10 Monday.