National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-01-30
SCOVILLE'S SCHEMES
TO SAVE THE AssAssiN,s NECK.
The Piece ofNewspaper Alleged TO Have Been Found
In the Jury Room-Tho Motion for
New Trial aud the Reasons
Therefor-NOtes.

In the Criminal Court Saturday mording Messrs.
Scoville aud Reed counsel for Guiteau appeared
and the former inquired OF the Court in respect Of
the form Of his bill Of xceptions-whether he
would be compelled to except specifically or
whether general exception would suffice JISiiSSe
Cox stated that under the practice of tbeSonrt be
would have to except specifically.
Mr.. Scoville then stated Tho had intendod n
hIc his motion for NV trial but he would like
TO have until NIer,Isv
lug 1II9ltfct Attorney objected, and Mr.. scoylle
SSd That In that case he would file his motion
-rhat afternoon in the Clerks Office
The District Attorney asked that the Court as
sign Tuesday next for the hearing of arguments
upon the motion, but, upon representations from
Mr. Scovile that he would scarcely be able to enter
upon the argument at that time, the Court de-
clined to fix day nj present.
TiIE PAPERS PILED.
Shortly before five o'clock MIR. Scoville filed with
the clerk of the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia the papers upon which he bases his
motion or motions for new trial. The allegations
set forth are substantially the snme as those pub
lished in The REPUBLICAN several days ago Not
being familiar with the practice in this District
Mr.. Scovile concluded to file two motions, to as
sure himself against the possibility of being de-
priyed through any legal technitalty Of the right
Of review by the Court in General Term. They
are as follows:
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
lnited States Of america District NJ Cl,lnpbfd So:
In the supreme Court of the District of Columbia
holding criminal term. The United States VS..
CharleS =. Huiteau-Casc No. l1,0jG; Indictment
Now comes the defendant In this case, by George
sc9Nlic, ms attorney, and moves the Court to set
upon the following grounds, to wit:
FiTsl-ly reason Of uncertainty in said verdict,
IN thal thG Jury thereby found the defendant
tltn 3pNY,
ssts of different counts variant from and iucon.
siStent with each other IN matters Of substance.
seJnnu iut Sniu NeIuct Oi the jury does not
specify which count or counts of the Indictment
II was founded upon, and several of the counts
being materially different from the others, the de-
cndnnt IS not advised by the form or substance OF
said verdict as to the finding of the Jury upon the
material acts of the death or place Of death Of the
deceased.
Third-For that the trial Of this cause was com.
menced ot the June term, 1881, of this court aud
was not concluded IN the same term Of court, hut
was extended into(he December term without uu-
Fourth-For that this court had no Jarisdlo,' N
of this cause by reason of the dcath y The de.
ceased having taken place onisiuc Of the District
Fnh-FOr that The Court erred in ovorruling
| each and al the prayers upon questions OF law
..-'Nd ~ counsel for defense, and in refusing to
instruct the jury as requested IN each Of the four.
teen prayers proposed by them, and shown on
pages 1856 1857 and l7js of the printed record in
sixth-That the Court erred on trial of this
cause in excluding proper evidence offered by the
defense, as set forth in the bill of exceptions.
Seventh-That the Court erred on trial of this
cause in admitting to go to the jury improper evi-
dencc on the part of the prosecution, as shown in
bill of exceptions.
Eighth-fhat the Court erred in commenting
Improperly during the trial upon the conduct OF
the defendant and in entering into an arrange
ment with the District Attorney (without the
knowledge OF counsel for the.delendanU whereby
the jury and the expert witnesses for the prosecu-
tion during portion of the trial might observe
certain conduct of the defendant to subserve the
purpose of the prosecution lthe defense being in
sanity without the restraining power of the Court
being exercised until those purposes were accom-
plished, to the great prejudice of the defendant.
Ninth-MisbehaVior Of the jury in reading or
hearing read to them newspapers calculated to
prejudice their minds against the defendant, as
shown in .aflidayits of Frederick ii. Snyder
George scoyille and John W. Guteau, filed here.
with.
Tenth-By reason of new and material facts, un-
known at the time of the trial and not ascertain
able by reasonable diligence on the part of the
defendant or his attorney, having come to light
since the trial. Shown IN affidavit filed herewith
Eleyenth-That the verdict is contrary to the
evidence.
Twelfth-That the verdict is contrary to the law
Of the case. GEORGE SCOVILLE,
Not FaNaln ln,aafa