The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1880-02-16
The wistiok Murder--A New Trial Re-
fused.

noon session commenced the argument by
reviewing the reasons for new trial, and
in the first place commented on tue pres
euce of court officials in the jury room.
while the verdict was being deliberated on.
He allowed that it had been the general
custom to have officers attend the Jury,
but claimed that it was wrong, and held
that the court should not hesitate to set
the verdict aside where an injury was
likely TO have been done to the prisoners.
In support of this he cited recent decision
of Judge Cooley of the Supreme Court of
Michigan, where criminal case had been
reversed on account of this practice. The
Court In New York had also condemned
the practice. and in the present case one
of the officers of the court who was in the
jury room. had been material witness for
the people, and the jury. it was presumed
might have felt hesitaney in discussing
the merits of the case in his presence.
Mr. O'Mara then proceeded to review the
disqualification of Jurors. He said that
the affidavit of Corker had
been voluntary, was absolute and
and positive. Mr.. Underwood, il is true.
had denied having said anything that
would affect his position as juror, aud
his affidavit had been supported by wit
ness, but it was not impossible for a COZ
versation to have taken place which these
witnesses had not heard. He did not wish
to impugn the veracity of Mr.. Underwood,
and be had believed him to be fair % an,
but in the present case he thought he had
been careless in his expressions. 10 the
case of the juror Drury, Jr.. he believed
perjury had been committed by some one.
Mr.. O. Mara then referred to the afidavits
of Downing and Adams who swore to GER
tain remarks of Silas Drury, Jr., which
would at once make his presence as a
juror Objectionable. If the afiiavits of
these men were true, aud there was no
reason to doubt they were SO, then Silss
Drury, Jr., was guilty Of perjury, aud his
verdict was tantamouut to one intended to
commit murder for it was no less. 1t
was question of veraeity between Drury,
Jr., and these men Dowling aud Adams;
and if they were to be believed, Drury,
Jr. had sworn falsely to get on the jury,
and would not hesitate to carry out the
plan to its results.
The affidavit of Silas Drury, ST.. deny
ing that he had any conversation with his
son. as set forth in the affidavit of r. j.
Bell and John Atkinson, or that 70 had
Instructed him in his duties as Juror, or
talked about the Roseniieid case, as
alleged. had been received But Bell and
Atkinson con!d have no motive in making
afiidavits that were untrue. abe testimony
of Rodsemau, Dir. 0 Mara claimed, was
improper, as referring to L matter entirely
different from the points which they might
wish to prove In the case. Wig: A guilty
knowledge on the part of the defendants,
or malice towards the deceased: and this
had not been attempted. There was
other evidence which was not confined to
the charge in the indictment. Grogan
had been asked if he was eyer in a fight
before; which was trying TO prove prior
misconduct and in a case Of this sort could
not be allowed as evidence. Slr. O'Mara
furthermore claimed that the instructions
of the prosecution regarding self defence
were imperfect. and the verdict vas not
the result of calm 6eiiGeration. Mr.
O'Mara then made an attack on the press
He said tho facts ia the case at the lime Of
its occurrence. had been grossly nisrepre-
secuted. which had SO poisoned the minds
Of the peopls that fair trial had not been
He concluded by asking the
court to grant the protec,i9n from an IN
fair ard partial verdict
On behalf of the people Mr.. Parmenter
reviewed the case and -said he should con-
fine his remarks to the facts in the case,
without eulogizing the deceased or the
{ FL GERS of the county. He then went over
the points and objections raised by Mr..
0 Mara As regards Mr.. Underwood, an
&tiea pt had been made to pump him in a
SAIGON before he was accepted as juror.
The affidavit of poyliug was vague and
indefinite. and though it stated be has said
that s4 had made up has mind, it did not
say 10 what. Nor was it to be necessarily
inferred that be had made up bis mind
that the accused were guilty. go in the
case OF Drury. if he had said what be
should do as juror it was to be inferred
that he was to give the prisoners fair
and impartisI Trial. When there were
two interpretations Olga remark possible,
the law .deman&5 de most honorable
one:< dorury, Jr. had said after the
trial xasf,n lateral. LAuthorities read
ID this point The sfidavits of Smith |
and Silas Drury. ST., denied the conversa-
ton as alleged. IN the case of Under |
wood. he was accepted as Juror. by the |
defence, after they knew of The converse
ten which Corker claimed to have taken
place. Besides Underwood denied the /
Itatement. AS regards the instructions |
objected to. the FIRST point had been taken
word for word from the statute, and the
'thers very nearly so.
Mr.. Jackson followed aud took up the
uestions of disqualification of jurors and
{ officers of the law being in the jury
Dom. He argued that after verdict had /