Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1878-03-16
The Case Of Major Curtis. =,

THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
This morning in the Criminal Court, Judge,
Wyhe. the case of Edward Raw alias Major
L. II. Curtis alias Houghton alias Richardson.
convicted on Saturday last, of having com
mitted rape on the person of Miss Ella Tyd-
lngs, OF Baltimore, at the National Hotel in
this city, on March 23d last. was called uD on
motion entered for new trial. The District
Attorney and Assistant Attorney Wells jr, for
the government, and MesSrs w. a. Cook and
q. h. C0Ikhill, for deiendent. The prisoner
was IN Court and appeared to watch the pro-
ceedings with more interest then during his
trial. There was an anxious look upon his
face. There was only fair attendance of the
members OF the bar and spectators.
Mr.. COrkhill made the motion with the
reasons theretor-a synopsis OF which has APP
peared in THE STAR
The District Attorney said that he was pre-
pared 10 show that aiiidayits of jurymen as TO
what had taken place i'm the Jury room as To
the discussion of the case and the making up
OF verdict were not admissible on a motion
of this character.
The court said that there was no rule as to
what the attorneys should file, and that afii-
davitS might be read. But when he came to
consider them he would exercise his discretion
as To what should be considered or excluded.
The counsel read the atlidavitS of the priS-
oner, w. q. Holman and Guy III. Thompson.
MIR. CoRKHIIL'S AFFIDAVIT As TO WHAT A
JURYMAN TOLD HIM.
When the reading of the aihdavlt of q. b.
COrkhill was commenced. il appearing that it
was as TO what iuryman had told him as 10
stopped il, saying that if the affidavit OF iu-
ryman could not be read the affidavit as TO
what jnrymen said could not be received,
and asked what he expected TO show.
Mr. CoTkhill said that he expected TO show
that when some member of the jury said he
could not convict, report OF the testimony,
as printed in the Republican, was read by the
foreman, Mr. Gill; item by item.
Mr.. Wells read, in opposition to the admis-
sion of the affidavit, from Wharton and 18th
Howard, 36l.
MIR. Corkhill claimed that the weight OF au-
thorty in this direction was as 10 civil cases,
but not in criminal cases. He read from a case
in 10th Iowa, and claimed that juror, in the
discharge OF his duty, should be protected, but
when he oyerstepped the line of his duty pub
lie policy demanded that there should be the
fullest opportunity given to show wherein he
had tranSgreSSed. He cited also aQ Ohio
criminal case on this point.
Mr.. Cook, for the accused, followed. and the
District Attorney replied briefly
THE JURY TO BE EXAMINED.
The court said they had better stop at this
point. He was OF the opinion that having the
paper III the room when delibeTating was inn
proper, and he could not see the difference
between allowing an editor or reporter 10 90
into the room and give his views and allowing
papers TO go TO the room. He would not hest.
tate to grant new trial when a mans liberty
was at stake, II improper conduct by the
The District Attorney suggested that the
subject be referred TO a L. s. Commissioner
and he examine each juror.
MeSSrs. Cook and COrkhill-We agree TO
that.
The court accepted the suggestion. and
said that he would direct that the Inquiry
be made as TO whether the Jurors read
the article i'm the Republican, as charged, and
whether 1t had influenced them. IL it should
be demonstrated that there had been i'm.
proper conduct he would not hesitate to set
aside the verdict, IL may be that the affidavit
of one Juror will be contradicted.
After some further discussion the case was
referred to u. s. Commissioner Samuel q,
Mills, and the hearing continued until Satur.
day next.