National Republican., 1880-03-06
THE HlRTH MURDERERS.
Motions for a New Trial for Bed
ford, 0ueenan and Pinn.
Tho Grounds on which tho Application is
Based-The Indictment Vague, Uncer-
tain and inconsistent - The ES-
oiudod Testimony OF the Douf-
and Dumb Witness-Ob-
JectiOns, Sc, SC.
Anor n New Trial.

After n New Trial.
Messrs. II. II. Mills jr., Randolph Coyle
and John A. Hayward yesterday filed mo-
tion in arrest of judgment aud for new trial
in tho case of Joseph Nevcrson, alias Babe
Bedford, aud Edward Queenan, convicted Of
the murder of George Z. Hirth on tho LIST in
stant. The motion is based on tho ground
that tho verdict was not rendered in the Dc.
! oenlber term OF 1879, at which the defendants
were tried that tho March term was opened
on the frstof that month, and the verdict was
entered rs of the December term that the
prosecution did not dispose of the other in
dictment to which the defendants had pleaded;
that ii the conviction rcmains in force the de-
PENDANTS may be subject to be twice put in
jeopardy OF life and limb that in ompunol-
ing the jury George White, one of the rcgu-
lar panel, answered that ho bad formed and
expressed an opinion and having been chal-
lunged, tho court refused TO allow the dctc;ii-
ants to question the juror that Charles W.
lluguely = Juror, said that he had formed
and expressed an opinion that 10 would re-
quire evidence to remove, aud tho court de-
cded that he was u competent juror; that tho
court refused to compel tho prosecutor to elect
between the three different scts of counts in
the indictment on which lie would 20 to trial;
that the indictment not only set out the canso
of death in two different ways, but also said
| that the cause and manner of producing death
were unknown; because the indictment was
vague, uncertain aud inconsistent aud did not
| inform the defendants rs TO what they would
| DO called upon IN defend, aud especially did
not inform them of tho means used in tho
murder OF Hirih.
| Tho motion for new trial is based upon
the following grounds; That tho prosecution
| did not dispose of The other indictment; that
the defendants were not permitted to examine
tho jurors on their roh dire when being cm-
panelcd; that they wore not served two ell.
| tire days before tho trial with tho names Of
William DanGorAeld, w. H. Spearo and
| William Pettis as witnesses in behalf OF
| the United States, and that they were
| allowed to testify in behalf of the
Government; that tho defendants wcro not
served with II copy Of the Indictment upon
which they were tried two days before the
trial; that they We're not served with n list Of
the jurors two days before tlcy wcro ar
raigued; that they were not permitted to in-
| Quire Of Ben Johnson as to his whereabouts
prior and subsequent to tho murder; that the
defendant was not pei united to provo by Mrs.
). Is. Smith that Edward Quconan held a con-
versation with Sarah Turuer in relation to going
| home At or near the house OF Mrs y RidenUur;
that Emma johnson was not permitted to tGs-
tify; that they We're not allowed to prove
Richard Browns attempt to purchase evidence
| in behalf of the Governments; because the court
refused TO admit certain evidence, viz, that OF
Kate Dixon, Robert w. Scholl and Mordrcai
Snowdcn; because tho court refused to grant
tho instructions prayed for. and lastly be.
cause of newly discovered evidence in the
case.
The counsel for Sandy Pnn, Messrs. Thomas
+. Miller, &. Maurice Smith and J. f. Riley
yesterday filed two separate motions in the
interest of their clicnt-one in arrest of judg-
ment and the other for now trial. The first
is based upon errors apparent upon the record
| al an n Indictment
refusal of the court to permit counsel to in
terrogate jurors upon the pOir dire AS to the ma
ture aud character of the opinion that they had
formed tlte existence ofthe prior indictment,t ,tC
which the defendants had pleaded. still o.
record and undispOstd of either by nOHe prose
gUi or otherwise, and the refusal OF the court
to compel the Government to elect which
of the several counts in the last indictment
they would rely upon for conviction. ThC
motion for new trial, in addition to tht
above contains all tho errors OF law claimed tt
have been made by the court in its rulings az
to the admissibiity of evidence aud Other
matters from the inception of the trial to the
rendition OF tho verdict. Prominent among
these is the refusal of tho court to permit
the Uross-oxamination of Ben johnson as to his
whereabouts from the night Of the murder up
TO tho hour of his arrest; the refusal to ad
nit tho testimony of the deRf-and-dumb
| woman, Emma johnson, who, it is'camed by
responsibilities nndor oath and her knowledge
of tho existence of n Supreme Being, aud hol
y, faith in the Almighty; aud by this witnes
they proposed to show that the prosecuting
, witness, Ben johnson, came to her house th
morning following the murder, exhibited t,
: her the watch aud ring of George p. Hirtb
and in her house washed from his hands tn
blood Of the murdered man. Further, the &C
ton of the court in admitting the testimon
of tho witnesses, William II. Speare, DIR. Petit
and William Dangertrld although thei
names had not been furnished to the defend
ants two days prior 70 the trial aud were no
on the Indictment as required by the reyise,
/. statutes In admitting the testimony q
James Croggan and others as TO the state
ments made by Ben Johnson TO then
while undor confinement in the station-hous
and subsequent TO the arrest OF tho defend
ants aud after he lJohnson) had been discOy
cred to have been participant in the homi
eide and under tho surveillance of the police
and prior to delivering his testimony in court
and after he had read the newspapers aut
c Rscertained the names Of tho parties arrtstet
S, for aud accused of the crime, with view t
II corrOboration out Of his own mouth.
After assigning numerous other errors, th
motion for n new trial concludes with an oh
9 cton to the charge of the Court, cspeciall.
that part in which, after reading 10 the iur.
a the evidence as to tho alibi of Pnu aud con
- ceding it's strength and integrity, he said tha
the jury must reconcile the conflict raised be
tween the evidence Of Dangerhold and John
son as to Pinns whereabouts on that nigh
' and the evidence as to Piuu's defense, uPo
tho theory that all of Pinn's witnesses trsti
i,d truly MS to his presence, but werO mis-
7 taken rs to the night.
III will be recolleeted that Mt the time th
charge was delivered tho attention OF til
court was called by the counsel for tho defens
to the fact that the Government admitts
! that tho nj ght testified to by Pinn'S witncsse
: was tho same upon which the murder wa
o committed, and that all the facts and circum
@ stances developed both by the Governmen
l. and dofeuse settled that question beyond
. dOubt.l
; 1t Is expected that these motions will b
! argued before Justice lIagnor to-day,
$ For Fine Watch Repairing
n at moderate prices call at Il. Harris & Co.'S, SO
Il Seventh street.
n Go to Julius Lansburgh for Cheap Carpets
d Ladies underwear less than cost Of matera