National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1878-03-18
WILL HE WINi
CURTIS STR UGGLEF FOR A NEW TRIAL.
Tho Jurymen TO be Examined to Soc
whether They Read "The National Repub-
iican"-In Case They Did the Court Says
that He WIN Set Aside the Verdict.

whether They Read "The National Repub-
1ican"-In Case They Did this Court Says
that He VIII Set Aside the Verdict.
The case Of Edward Ray, alias Major T. II. Curtis,
alias Houghton, alias Richardson, on motion for q
new trial, came up before Justice wylie last satur
day morning The grounds on which the applica-
ton Is based have already been made public also
contradictory affidavit by Joseph Flynn.
District Attorney Wells appeared for the Govern.
mcnt, and Colonies Cook and Corkhill for the de-
PENDANT who was also In attendance, and occupied
a seat between his counsel. Colonel Corkhil read
the numerous reasons why the defense asked for n
new trial. which were amended - meet the rccol-
lcctions OF the court.
Amer reading the exceptions the District Attor.
ncy said that he was PREPARED 10 show by numer-
Gus authorities that no affidavit of juryman as to
what occurred in the juryroom concerning the
discussion OF cause and making mp ola verdict was
inadmissable before the court on motion OF this
character.
His Honor replied that they would settle that
point when reached. There was no rule for pre-
venting counsel from filing paper, but when II
came to be considered In open court then he could
exercise his Judgment whether to receive or throw
II out.
The point was raised on
AFFIDAVIT OF COLONEL CoRKHILL,
which containcd the statements of two jurymen-
Hurdle and snmmy-as 70 what occurred In The
luty.r3om while they were celebrating and trying
district. Attorney Wells read from whar,on,s
Criminal Law, Il Howard, and other authori-
ties To sustain the point made.
Colonel COrkhii admitted that It was true that
the current Of English authorities were aaainst the
trnnspired IN the jury room while they were
making mp q verdict, hut claimed that they related
To civil causes In suits for damages and the Kind
and not where mans life aud liberty we c in
Jeopardy. lie cited the cases of Wright ". the
Illinois and Mississippi Railroad Company, Nancy
rsrrsn vs. Ste f III, WG f siI ar ' ih ry was
10 have read 1nE NATIONAL RfrrBIiCAS IN the
jufy.r om, and used II To- influence ALTERING Jurors
IN unite with them In coming to Il verdict He be-
licved It to be the duty of the court to that the
defendant had fair trial under the law and all
the safeguards thrown around mhn charged Win
crime.
Colonel Cook made more lengthy and ex
hAuStire argument nu the same side.
District Attorney Well. IN answering the counsel
on the other side sail If the affidavit Of this one
juryman was ADMITTED. then he should ask for
those Of the remaining eleven.
The court Snd IL thai going To be the case.
they might a. well stun right there. lie was Of the
opinion that TINS NATIONAL kErrRrICAS having
been i'cli IN the lun-rnOm while the jurors were
,lriberattng and discussing over their verdict was
highly improper couiu't. lie was unable 10 see
the difference between permitting an editor 10 g.
before Jury aud state his views or n reporter Ia
take an account of what may trlnsprc III the jury
room and allowing the papers there which cmbndy
their views on the very matter that the Jury have
under rbns lrTntun, IN order that the jurors may
real them. lie should not hesitate to grant II new
trinl where mans liberty sns NJ stake " Il was
shown that the jury had been pniilty Of improper
usrcmcut. However. This wa, hui a solitary aii.
duvit und thclc might h. others made 10y The re-
mum.ng lurymcm contradictory ot this one, and
should this bc done, 1t would give diiicrcat phase
10 the matter.
PLAN AGREED UPON.
Districts attorney Wells. Refer The subject to
United state. commissioner and let him examine
each Of the jurors.
Mc..rs Cook and COrkhilI. We agree n that
The Court. Who shuIl he the commissioner?
District Attorney We!,s Mr. J. j. Johnson i o
good man.
M,ssrs Cook AMI C,'rkhil. lie suits ~.
The Court. Well. let him be appointed. and let
him examine esCh iuryman RS u whether Or not
he read the article IN TIE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN
of March :; II 1t was used In their deliberations,
and ifit became authority TO influence them in
agreeing To- verdict. II II should be demonstrated
that there was ans improper conduct in the Jury
room, shall not hesitate 10 sci aside this verdict
We have here only one affidavit II may he that
the remaining Jurors will contradict that. and 1t Is
- ascertain this fact or the truth Ot the deposition
that this reference Is made. II will not stand
precedent for my course IN the future. aud Is only
done now because both sides agree u II.
II being disputed point whether or not Judge
johnson was II United States commissioner, the Ease
was referred TO Samuel e. Mills, about whose com
mission there was doubt.
His Honor cautioned the Jurors that were in the
chamber To neither read converse on tho subject,
Rs the cOlr, might have 10 try the case again, and
he wanted them free Of bias.
The further consideration Of the case was post
pOne1 until saturday next.