The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1882-02-02

several of the counts being materially
different from the others and the
| defendant is not advised in form OF the
| substance of said verdict as to the
finding of the jury upon the material
| facts OF the death or place of death of the
deceased.
Third, The trial of this cause was
| commenced at the June term, 1881, of
this court, and was not concluded al the
| same term OF court but was extended in.
to the December term without author
ity of law.
Fourth, That this court had no iuris-
| diction in this cause by reason of the
death of the deceased having taken place
outside of the District of Columbia
Fifth, That the court erred in over
ruling each and all of the PRAYERS upon
the questions of law asked by the coun-
sci for the defense and ia
refusing to instruct the jury as request
ed in each of the fourteen PRAYERS
proposed by them.
Sixth, That the court erred in the trial
of the cause in excluding proper evil
dence Offered by the defense as set forth
in the bill of exceptions.
Seventh, That the court erred in the
trial of this cause in admitting to go To
the jury improper evidence on the part
of the prosecution as shown in the bill
of exceptions.
Eighth, That the court erred in com
menting improperly during the trial ON
the conduct of the defendant on trial and
in entering into an arrangement with
the district attorney without the
knowledge of the counsel for the
defendant whereby the jury and
expert witnesses for the prosecution
during portion of the trial might OBJ
serve certain conduct of the defendant
to subserve the purpose of the prosecu-
ton, the defense being insanity, with
out the restraining power of the court
being exercised until that purpose was
accomplished, to the great pref udice of
the defendant.
Ninth, The misDehaviour of the Jury
in reading or having read to them
newspapers calculated to prejudice
their minds against the defendent as
shown in affidavits of Fred. Snyder,
Geo. Scoville and John w. Guiteau,
filed herewith.
Tenth, By reason of new and material
facts unknown at the time of
the trial and not ascertainable by
by reasonable diligence on the part fthe
defendant or his attorney, having come
to light since the trial, shown in the
affidavit filed herewith.
Eleventh mat tue VerulCt Is contrary
to the evidence.
Twelfth. That the verdict is contrary
to the law in the case.
(SIgned) GEORGE SCovILLE,
Defendants Attorney.
The second paper filed is bill of ex-
ceptions and contains the same points
made in the motion fer a new trial.
Guiteau, In his affidavit says as he is re-
strained of his liberty he is compelled 10
leave the whole matter of new trial Ia
Scoville.
The affidavit of Frederick A. Snyder.
of Jersey City, sets forth that he was a
guest at the National hotel during a
portion of the month of December, and
occupied a room near those occupied by
the jury in the Guiteau case. On one
occasion he saw the door of one of the
rooms so occupied, standing open, but
nobody therein, and on the table of
said room was a newspaper, and know
ing it to be forbidden the jury to have a
newspaper, he (Snyder) stepped in and
took the paper, which he found was a
copy of the Evening Critic, containing
an account of Jones' attempt to shoot
Guiteau, and an editorial denouncing
the prisoner. On the margin were
either the names or initials of five jurors.
In the interest of justice he took the
paper to Scoville. Attached to this at
fidavit is a copy of the Critic alluded
to with the names of jurors mentioned
written in ink upon the margins.
The affidavit of Scoville is TO the eff
feet that he believes the names of the
jurors were written on the margin de-
scribed in Snyder's affidavit by the
jurors themselves, and that since the
trial new and material facts showing
the insanity of the prisoner have com e
to his knowledge.
The main reliance of the defense is in
the afndavit of Snyder and the ci5py-of
the Critic appended, which it is claimed
was seen and read by the jury pending
the trial A careful comparison of the
writing upon the margin of the newspa-
per with the signatures of jurymen
whose names appear there shows a strIk-
ing resemblance and establishes strong
case of circumstantial evidence. The
district attorney, however, asserts that
this matter of tampering with irregular
or improper conduct on the part OF. the
jury as set forth in Snyder's affidavit will
be disposed of in short order by the pros
ecution. The jury themselves are quite
indignant and firmly denythe charges
of improper conduct on their part.