Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1878-03-14
The National Hotel Outrage.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THE CASE o
RAY. ALIAS CURTIS, ETC.

NOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IN CASE OF
RAY, ALIAS CURTIS, ETC.
In the Criminal Court, Judge Wylie, yester-
day afternoon, Messrs. Cook and COrkhill,
counsel for Edward Ray, alias Curtis, etc,
convicted of rape on Saturday last,) filed
motion for new trial, for
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Because the court refused to allow the de
PENDANTS attorneys, before the jury was en-
panneled, to question the jurors with a view to
challenge such OF them as might be incompe-
tent, and ascertain as to their qualifications,
maintaining that the court had that province
alone. On account OF this refusal the defense
was prevented from aScertaining the bias of
the Jurors, and especially from knowing that
and that others Of the jury had served on the
Jury within two years prior to that time, among
them one Foot. Because when the panel was
exhausted the jurors were not summoned, as
required by law, but ordered to be selected
from the byStanderS who had assembled in
the courtroom. Because, upon the trial, the
defendant offered TO prove that shortly after
the. commission Of the oftenSe the PROSE
cutting witness. Miss Ella Tydings, was an
innfate of diffesent houses of i'll repute, both
in this city and Baltimore, which the court
refused to admit Or hear argument upon
Because the'cOurt erred in not instFucting the
:ury whether or not, from all the evidence
Miss Ella IydingS had been cOrrObOrated i'm
any material part of her testimony as TO the
commission of the alleged crime, and that the
court enormously Instructed the jury that
they, the jury, were not only. to consider, as
that 2 rape had been committed, but to give
their full weight to all the testimony in regard
10 what took place in Baltimore between these
5a the court refused to Grant
IN his room at the hotel sitting at the front
window, the adjoining rooms being occupied
and no cries being heard, and which could
nave been heard If they had been made. Be
cause the court refused to grant the eighth
prayer. which concerned the credbility of
Ella 1ydlngs and her cOncealing the facts
Shtl IrIllfy f. r11irN n,I
whether or not her room was one in which she
could have locked and secured herself Be
cause the court erred i'll refusing to grant the
ninth prayer. which was that if the Witness
Miss Ella TydingS, had, in the narrative of the
occurrence at the National Hotel, in any par
ticular testified falsely, the whole testimony
should be rejected by the jury. Because the
court refused to grant the prayer eleven, on
identification and on account OF miSc0nStruc-
ton on the question OF reasonable doubt. Be-
cause the court repeatedly sent for the Jury
without having received any message from
them. and inquired of them if they had
agreed; and on receiving an answer in the
negative told them that he did not intend to
starve them, but intended to have a verdict;
that by the use OF this and other expressions
tile verdict was coerced. Because the verdict
was obtained by improper and illegal conduct
toward. and treatment of, the jury. Because
the verdict is against the law and contrary to
the evidence. Because there are two counts
III the lndIctment-One OF rape and the other
OF assault with intent TO commit rape-and
the verdict is general. Because the verdict is
not responsive to the issue. Because on a
new trial the defendant expects tie prove that
he was in New Orleans at the time the alleged
offence was committed. Because, on a new
trial the defendant expects to prove that be-
lore and after the commission of the alleged
crime Miss Ella TydngS was unchaSte aud
that her character for truth was bad, and that
She was generally dishonest. Because the de-
1endant is Informed and believes that, after
the case was given to the jury, and while en-
gagged in deliberations, one of the jurors
Closeup Flynn) HAD copy of the National
ltepUhtc"n, containing statements of the tes
timony and an account of the trial. That said
paper was produced and read, and also copy
OF SAID paper by another of the jurors. and
that, by reference to these papers. disputed
questions OF testimony We're determined. and
4 Verdictintuenced. Because il was miScon
duct on the part of the jury to have said
papers In their possession.
SEVERAL AFFIDAvITS
are nled IN support of these reasons. The first
OF these 10 the effect that Edw. Ray, alias f.
III. Curtis, the prisoner, expected to have
proved on the trial, by one Duvall, that he
6th e., prisoner was IN New Orleans on the date
or facilities he failed to obtain the attendance
OF Duvall, but that he will procure his attend
ance at new trial, and will prove by Geo ii.
Duvall, William Galby. Albert Smith Alfred
Chapman, John Nelson and Charles Bush, who
We're win nm at the time, that he was in the
south in March, 1877. He swears also that he
expects 10 prove that the character and repu-
ton OF Ella TydmgS is bad; that she was a
freTuenter of houses of ill-fame: that he eX
pecls to prove Miss Tydings, il reputation for
Hattie Willis, and others intimately acquainted
with her in Baltimore; that she was dishonest
and on that account she was compelled to leave
her uncles house; that her brother Joseph
Iydlngs, found her in a house of i'll fame in
Josephine street, in Baltimore, and that she
was brought from that house to give her testi-
mOny; that after giving her testimony before
the grand jury she Immediately became an in
mate OF Il house of ill-fame in Washington. and
that she was in other houses of ilL-fame in
Washington: that one Hartman, of Washing
Ton, formerly OF Baltimore, will testify as to
her character before the occurrence at the
National hotel, and that She has told parties i'm
houses OF i'll fame in this city since the occur
renee That no force was used upon her in the
National hotel. He also sWearS that he has
been Informed that the National Republican
and other papers were read and talked over in
the Jury -rOom by the jurors and operated to
bias their verdict and he concludes with the
usual oath that his testimony is newly dseOy-
cred and that he had used due diligence to OBJ
An affidavit of W. S. Hoffman is to the effect
that there were bolts on the communicating
doors OF the rooms occupied by he parties at
the National hotel.
Also an aftidavit of Guy II. Thompson that
Finn requested him to say to Col. Cook that
ne mad been against the defendant from first
to last and voted guilty from first TO LAST
and that THE testimony of Ella Tydngs was
the turning point in the case
The motion Tor u new trial will be argued
on Saturday.
DEEDS IN FEE have been filed as follows
T.. Lyddane TO Rebecca A. Reilly, $3.50 part
los, Threlkeld's addition to Georgetown! B.
Theresa Dillon To WIN. Dillon, sl,O.l. part lot
III, So. 81. b. Milburn ct al. commissioners
To Frank Hume, $50, part lot A, SD. 677. Jas.
r Fitch to John l.. WOrden, 400. west half
lot Is, So. 2lS Thomas Young to Helen NJ
Young, Si2,l25 lot $, So. 252 Sarah C. Young
10 same; =, quit claim, same property. Same
to Sarah C.. Purdy. $1,000 lots p TO %, So. 1870.
JOhn foore to Jacob III. kengia, 81 ,2G, three
f0urthS of an acre on turnpike from George
town to TennallytOwn. Lueretia Kleber to
j. /. sullivan, =, 500, Sub-lot =, So. 3S3 s. HI.
Wallis TO j. McClelland. $1,000 lot ! So 341
{. q; Schneider To w. T. Fowler, 500, lot s, 81.
-. w. +. Mattingly ct al, trustees, to W. Mil
Ter, $50 part lot 3, Bell Plains and Pads
worth.
DR. CoRNING's LECTURES.-The course of
eight lectures on the history of art, by Prof
Corning, which begins at the lecture room of
the Congregational Church tomorrow eve
ming will lie one of the most interesting and
instructive series ever delivered here, if testi-
mOnlals from the highest authorities in the
country can be relied upon. What makes
them particularly valuable, in addition to Dr.
Cornings special fitness for the task he has
undertaken, is the large number of choice and