The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-29

|
that, as the representative Of the State, hs
wou Vi enter into the trial just as he would iu
any other. He would not ask o conviction
| from the jury unless the facts showed that the
defendan IS were guilty. As he knew his heart.
he did not desire to convict unless the proof
showed it. 1T came
| WITH BAD GRACE
from the other side 10 make this application
at this time.
court was one purely Of law and fact. It was
n matter Of right. 1t was q question Of evil
dence that would haze to be decided, He WIS
sorry to see the Attorney General refer tu
matters outside of the issues involved. The
defendants came into court 70 stli,stantfats
J the allegations Of the application. He did not
| come into court with witnesses subptenaed.
lie would take his from
THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE,
and would show that the dofendant could NOT,
get q fair trial here. Regarding the lateness
of the filing he would like TIE prosecution to
s1ow him Tive law stating at what time suclr
an applications should be filed He asserted
last few days and that they could not legally
apply for q change Of venue before. They had
| followed every requisite of the eaw. He then
read the statute relative to tEs change of
| venue.
/ He could not gee how the objection could be-
sustained. In regard TO the likeness between
the application foE removal and that for the
change Of vbnue, he referred to the orial OF the
Eappicaton for removal and the authorities
| sfssrein cited In that trial the State had ad-
| mitted that there was a prejudice; but now it
| 10 denied. He woald say that in his opinion
the Attorney General was too generous to
| have any prejudice himself, but he would ask
| him. rs a generous man to say that there was
not Il still voice amongst the people OF preiu-
dice against the prisoners.
The Assistant: Attorney General, inreply.
urged the point that the application
| CAME Tnu LATE
now He read. several authorities, showing
what WAS q reasona bic notice for change uf
venue, He said that the defense had not
| brought themselves within the law.
| Mr. CAsteiaIfat cited some authorities con-
tra., Hesaid that they had complied with ths
| s. tatute.-
The court said that it was matter W thin
the discretion Of tie court. Had the defense
Ecomplied with tho,lawY He believed not. The
eourt would add that the defendants could be
fairly tried by the jury bow impaneled-
The jury was composed ofas fair minded ms N
SIS any ever impaaeled Actions rad been
taken, suah as the court would not charae
terize,
/ To DELAY THE GASES,
and he would not permit it. He would over
Ilae the application for change OF venue
The Attorney General then stated that the
case Of Madison Wells had been fixed first,
but as he was not present, lie would call UP
Judge Cullom asked the court that there be-
| no severance for the jury could just we'll
try them all together.
| The Attorney General said that the state
had right to a severance.
| The court said that tie State had no neeessf~
ty to answer the interrogations OF the defense.
He was satisfied that the Attorney General
was entitled to the severance.
Mr.. Castellanos then stated that, as the triaf
was to go on, he thought the
BONDS SHOULD BE FINED
in the case of Casanave and Kenner, before
Anderson's trial was in progress.
Il The court thought that 5000 In these two
not ysnQ cuff fioi unh hSf,n ny7fifs YfAd
Casanave and Kenner were then remanded
TO the dock, awaiting bOndSmen.
4 The witnesses were then called, after which
John Ray entered and took his seat with the
attorneys for the defense The first juror was
then called. when Mr.. Castelanos offered q
challenge to the array based upon the same
grounds as that in the case OF the State VS..
r. G.. Harris.
The challenge was overruled-
The hTSt juror called was
| B. Il. EsGHLEMAN,
who was sworn.
To the Attorney Generals a resident of
| the parish; engaged with Stauffer, Macready
II Co, in the hardware business; knows of the
case against the Returning Board only by
what he has seen in the newspapers; never
saw the evidence
To the defense-Is a member OF the firm of
| Stauffer, MacIeady Il Co, II Canal street, and
has been for two years, understands the nature
of the charge against the prisoners; knows the
defendants by having seen them only; all his
knowledge OF the case was derived from read
ing the newspapers, but never read the evi-
dence. Knows the case as the Returning
Board case, bat could not remember any par,
tcular part of the case. Does remember
reading some of the evidence in the Littlefield
case; not the examination OF Gov. Wells in
} Washington; saw some comments. These
publications did affect bis mind as to the
guilt or innocence of the accused. Remem-
bers what bis opinion was and retains that
opinion now. Tt would require evidence ON
the part Of the accused TO establish their inno
4fx
that opinion, so long as that evidence was re-
liable. Voted at the last election. Is not
, much OF q talker has spoken OF tue case with
friends. a--e
An indictment against person Is not pre-
sum ption in his mind Of the g9jlt Of an ae-
a prisoner guilty.
Mr Casteilanos said that he did not believe
the juror was a good one.
To the Assistant Attorney General-Could
try. the case as fair and impartial Juror.
Mr. CaStellanos urged that this was mat
ter left to the court
To the Court-Has formed an opinion as to,
the guilt or innocence of the accused, but it
would yield to evidence.
Il The Court-He is qualified juror.
Challenged by the accused.
| WALTER L. BELL
} was next called Resides in this parish Only
| know of the facts of this case from reading
, OF it in the papers. His mind is in such a
state that he could render a fair and i'm
partial, verdict. Objected to and objection
overruleCD.
To the defense-Is not acquainted with any
Of the accused Never had any business rela-
tions with them. Has had conversations
about the case since the matter came up. This
: was In the club. Never heard the facts dis
cussed except from what was In the papers
After reading did form an opinion, as every
body does after reading papers. Heard Of evil
dence published taken before the Morrison
Congres sional Committee: Has recently
heard the matter discussed and talked about
it. Has expressed an opinion as to the inno-
: ccnce or guilt Of the accused. Does not be-
: lieye the accusation raises q presumption OF
, guilt. Ny opinion is only light impression.
Taken as the first juror OF the panel and he
was sworn in.
T.. j. HAMILTON