, 1876-02-19

rules, a8 demurrer 10 tito evidence adnI1E0 nos
only tho facts thcreln stated but nleo escry CON
ensson Which jnrJ might fairly or roasonabIy
infor thurefrntm.
In decitng upon tho present motfon II nnRt
10 hrHnued that all cstdcnco III tho caso rs true
and that tho witnesscs aga all credited, tot II
tl,ero aro questions relating to tl.o oradIb!,ity
to /" '"'ss drawn from ovi4onco. thcao aro
questions not for tho Court but for
the Jury '''Icr tlH aa''co anu anu aIFee.ton 2,
which .pn,o Courts iiay. hsvo iusastasod witt
the pEoyi3ce OF tho Jury In nlaoucr which 1t
Nigh. DO difficult 10 reconcile with tho views
atosa ge finfpeGs Which %nst
ut the United asntos. -whose iudgmen's harc in
slis conrt tue force at authority. Ills doctrine
Of tic supro.nn Court of tho United States Ia
vol alown iu Hickman ys. Jones, 9th Wallace,
whicI, the Court poremptor,ly instructed tho
Jury to acquit two OF tho defendants. In holding
k1iI 10 haye bceu crEonoous undor tho circum-
sLancos tho supsen,o Court Of tho ,Uuited Statca
says There was roma evidence nEaiuat both Of
them. Whether it was sutliclont to warrant .
verdict Of guilty. waa question for tho jury.
Uodor tho instructions Of the Court tho lcarna1
Judge mngod tho duty OF tho Court and Jury,
leaving 10 tho Jury no discretion h9t to obey Tho
tlenco. or Buch defect In 1t that tho law will NOT
},4ysnit verdict for tho ptaintiN to la given,
Ruch MI instruction may bo properly lenaMed,
and It 10 the duty Of .ho Court 10 give It. 10 TO
fnso ID orror.
In this caao tho evidence was received without
objection. and was before tIla jury. u tondoa
10 maintain on tbs part Of tho plniitlf tho issue
which thoy were to try. Whether weak or St!ont'.
ot W.. tass G ss H. to co Sass % urcs Ill.,
nars or tto ciso nso.o than any other
| from tho oxorcino Of their Judgment: Tho III
! s:ractions gison aycr,ookol tlo limo whch aopa-
| ratio, two separate spheres Ut duty. Though CO.
itnunrk INK tn
tho right administration Of Justice that thoy
should 10 kcpt NO. It is All much Within tie
,sosiIco Of tlla Jury to decide questions os fact
rs OF tho Court to decide questions uf law. Ts
Jury should tahe tho law as laid lown by ths
Court uni gtvu it fil oifccs. but its application
To tic tacts mud tho faets themselves 1t is
| proper for them to dcte!mino. Thoao arc tie
| rhccks aud balances which Riyo the trial by Jury
tauce. They aro Indispensable to tho harmony
aud proper otlcioucy OF tho system. Tho Sill
promo Court In casos whore the facts aro not
controvcrsetl. and whcro tho Inference to he
| deputct, Or whero t,esc Is no uyldeuco tcnliug
to estab1iai necessary element III tl.o caHe, has
held that the Court may pcremptotily direct
what vcr1scs shall DO given. Tho d,etinc-
ton botweon sanos % wi. which H.. fsn within h!
deciaon Of the jury. IL Scll i!!ustrstod in tho
ltailroad Company W. Stout, II Wallace, {s'7. In
this case the Supreme Court held that Nhore in
nny Case It IL H'atsor Of judgment and d!scro-
| tion, OF Eouud inf0rsuco, what Ia tho deduction
| to Lo drawn from ercn undiBputel facts where
different mon. oftlally bauBibte and equally iul-
partial, would mako difToront inferences. Such
cnAeH tho law commits to tue decision Ut tho jury
under tho instructions from tho Court.
Tho motion here must, in our Judgment. nc
lonicd, for Two rcneonB: F,rst-Thrro arc facse
yhicbare not nn1sputed, for example, tiloge ro-
lating to the letter testified to by Everest at.d
Mcnill. sccond-:fho proper interencca to bt
frcn, fjtn al mt n}t, fuN} bre
not 30 cloar and certain that tho Court eau do
c!aro their effect d mattor of laH. Tho doc
trins contonded for by, tho lcarncd couuse
for tho defendant, il applied to thi
tic wcl!-aet.Iod rules laid dorm by thu unita.
ttatrs Supreme Court in tho caso Of I1ieAmn,
| N. Joues. ubovo ctol, in which that tribuila
| hods that tho constitutional province Ut tn
Jury, us,0ar iuat1uctions frum tIo Court, OK
to,.da to tile right to decide upon 4nasttnus q
fact in a weak cnue ~ vol aa III q strung cnso
| Tiny mu1t annlyze tho osiaence before then,
aua determine tho wosviat to be given to 1t atlt
the sevogal parts tholoof.
| THE ARGUMENTS.
Some discussion thon tooa 1'laco as to tho or
der In which nrg.ltnonts should he uatlo. Til
rule Of the Court lind teon for tho dofouso t.
open, aud bo followed BY tue lsosecution' b'
tho opening sloula 10 BY the prosecution. IL
md It was hut ju4t that tho dc
| fenso should bo advised NJ to what POI
t!on OF tho great flhsa Of testimony whic
had haon induced, and tbs large pnrt of whIc
lad been rendered. Irrelevant HiIsco Ito intro<lus
tio,l. would 10 rolled upon bY tho prosecution
Az tho ptosecuEon had tho territlo ativantaRn {
Tho coming arBIlncnt, they should not compiai
Of boing required to dtscloao tLer case no ~ I
! gi,o tho defouBe an ileA as to wLat they wouI
hare to answer.
judge Dillon did not think tho rulo d goo
ono, and lii view Of tho oiEcumatauoos,
seemnl to boil. himself ni.d Judge Treat br
junt that the prosecution bo required to open
order that tho defense iutght not wnsto timo
| guessing on what portion Of tho nlasa Of test
luony tho prosecution rolled. Ho would. thor
fore, suspend the rulc ns 1nattor Of Justice
lefeuIsut.
Col. D-or Baid 10 had not expected this. NJ
hal 10. =: -.ar0d lis argument. uo tAe1Gfor
asked IT,. nu a1io.ir,taont until to-tnoTros
Judge Porter Joined IN tho request, - tho dt
tc,,ae wnB oInaily unprerarc1, aud Judge Dillc
acquiessad. uni tho Court adjourned.
! M'kEE'S CASE.
HIS CuuxREI WILL. AvrEstl'F TO FaovE THAT o..
or THE Jl'EnEH NAD rxP1EreaKp An uriN1oa {
GUILT ruE~1ous To THE TEtAL.
Spee,n! p,spateh to Ths Catchan TRIBUNE
Er. 14ocls, Mo-, Feb 1S.-Yo.ni3ht Col. y
II. Hitch, OF tto counsel for Mexico, arrived
the city, 1t iB aaid. with HOMO proof TINT ono
| tho }urofu stated before he WAS Humnonad tn
ho believed hfcKco was guilty. Tho defen.
. l,nyo been torkiug to SECURE Bomo points OF th
.. kiud over Hinco tho trial endod. The wltucl
npon whom MeI1coa counsel reos to provo th
Summers, ono Of tho Jurors, oxpteB
| ed MI nninfon OF 1fcKeofa putlt ntit