Daily globe., 1882-01-30


WASHINGTON, Jan. 2S.--In the crimina
court this morning Scoville and Reed, counss
for Guiteau, appeared, aud the former in
quired of the court in respect to the form O.
his bill of exceptions, whether he would b
compelled to except specifically, or whether
general exceptions would suffice. Judge Coz
stated that under the practice of the court ht
would have to except specifically. Scoville
then stated he had intended to file a motion
for new trial, but would like to have until
Monday. The district attorney objected, and
Scoville stated in that case he would file g
motion this afternoon In the clerks Office
The district attorney asked the court to as.
sign Tuesday next for argument upon the mo-
ton, but upon representations from Scovllle
that he could scarcely be able to enter upon
argument at that time, the court declined to
tx day at present.
GROUNDS OF THE MOTION.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2S.-This afternoon SEQ.
vile filed with the clerk of the supreme court
of the District of Columbia the papers on
which he bases his motion, or motions, for a
new trial. Not being familiar with the prac-
tice in this district, Scoville took the caution
TO file two motions, to assure himself against
the possibility of being deprived, through any
legal technicality, Of the right of review by
the court in general term. The papers filed
in support of the motions are: The prisoner s
affidavit; the affidavit of Frederick 81. Snyder,
as to finding of newspaper In the room
occupied by the jury, under circumstances
the affidavit of J. w. Guiteau, that
he is acquainted with the signatures
of five jurors, whose names are written on the
margin of the newspaper, said 10 have been
seen By the jury; that he has seen them write
their names and believes the writing upon
said newspaper to have been made by the
jurors named. The last affidavit Is that of Mr..
Scoville, setting forth newly discovered evi-
dence, upon which he based the motion for a
new trial.
The first paper is motion for new trial
upon the following grounds
First-By reason of the uncertainty in said
verdict, in that the jury thereby found defend
ant equity as indicted, whereas the indct-
ment consists of different counts, varied from
and inconsistent with each other in matters
OF substance.
second-That said verdict of the jury does
not declare which count or counts of the in
dIctment it was founded upon, and several OF
the counts being materially different from
Others, the defendant is not advised by the
form OF substance of said verdict as TO the
finding of the jury upon the material facts Of
Third-For the reason that the trial OF this
cause was commenced at the June term, 1881,
of this court and was not concluded In the
same term of court, but was extended into the
December term without authority Of law.
Fourth-For that this court had no juris.
diction of this cause by reason OF the death OF
deceased having taken place outside OF the
District of Columbia.
Fifth--For that the court erred in overrul-
ing each and all prayers upon questions OF
law asked by counsel for defense, and in refus-
ing to instruct tfe jury as requested in each
of fourteen prayers proposed by them.
Sixth--That the court on the trial OF this
case in excluding proper evidence offered by
the defense, as set forth in the bill of excep-
tions.
Seventh-That the court erred on the trial
of this case in admitting to 60 TO the jury im-
proper evidence on the part of the prosecution,
as shown in the bill of exceptions.
Eighth-That the court erred in comment
ing improperly during the trial upon the con-
duct of defendant and in entering into an I'M
proper arrangement with. the district attorney
without the knowledge of counsel for de-
fendant) whereby the jury and expert wit
nesses for the prosecution during portion Of
the trial might observe certain conduct of the
defendant, TO subserve the purpose OF the
prosecution, (the defense being insanity,
without the restraining power of the court
being exercised until those purposes were ac-
eomplished, to the great prejudice OF the de-
fen6ant.
Ninth-Mlshebavo of the jury in reading
or hearing read to them newspapers calculated
to prejudice their minds against defendant, as
shown in the afidavits of Frederick b. Sny-
der, George scoyille and j. W. Guiteau, filed
herewith.
Tenth-By reason of new and material facts
unknown at the time of the trial and not as
hx,, oh n he RI
of defendant or his attorney, having come to
light since the trial, shown in the affidavit
hled herewith.
Eleventh-That the verdict is contrary to
the evidence.
Twelfth-That the verdict is contrary to the
law of the case.
TSigped.1 GEO. SCovILLE,
Defendants Attorney.
The second paper filed is bill of excep-
tons, and contains the same points made in
the mention for 4 new trial.
eUtTEAU's AFFIDAVIT.
Guiteau, in his affidavit, says as he is re-
strained of his liberty, he is compelled to leave
the whole matter of new trial to Scoville
The affidavit OF Frederick II. Snyder, of Jer
sey City, sets forth that he was guest at the
Nationa. Hotel during portion of the month
of December, and occupied room near those
occupied by the jury In the Guiteau case. Or
one occasion, he said, the doors of one of the
rooms so occupied was standing open, but
with no person therein, and on the table oi
said room vas newspaper, and knowing il
was forbidden the jury to have newspapers
he (Snyder) slipped in and took th'
paper, which he found was a copy
of the Evening Critic, containing al
account of the attempt of Jones t.
shoot Guiteau, and an editorial denouncinf
ihe prisoner. On the margin was either th'
names or initials of five of the jurors. In th'
interests of Justice he took the paper to SEQ
willie. Attached to this affidavit is q copy O
the criticism with the names of the juror
mentioned writtt in ink on the margin.
The affidavit of Scoville is to the effect tha
he believes the names of the jurors were writ
ten on the margin of the paper described il
Snyder's affidavit by the jurors themselves
and that since the trial new and importan
facts showing the insanity of the prisone
have come TO his knowledge. The main reli
ance of the defense Is the affidavit of Snyde
and the copy of the Critic appended to 1t
which, it is claimed, was seen and read by tn
Jury pending trial.
A careful comparison of the writing upol
the margin of the newspaper with the sigma
tures of the jurymen where the names appear
shows striking resemblance, and establishe
a strong case of circumstantial evidence. Tn
district attorney, however, asserts that thu
matter of tam pering with, or improper con
duct on the part of the jury, as set forth il
Snyder's affidavit, will be disposed of in shor