Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1882-02-02
NO. 5.

Warden Crccker had a discussion at
the jail, yesterday, as to the propriety
of allowing Guiteau's address to 90 out.
Scoville at first opposed it, but finally
yielded in this instance, but said that
so long as the papers will print Gui-
teau's creeds he farcies he has the ear
OF the press that he is superior to his
counsel, and can manage the case EN-.
tlrely IN his own way, while as a mat
ter Of fact ne is indebted to his own ut
terances for yesterdays verdict. War
den Crocker suggested: If you will not
supply him with any more stationerv,I
will not, so that he does no more writing.
1t was finally settled between the coun-
sci and warden, that for the next week
no one shall be permitted to interview
the prisoner, and that no communica-
ton shall go to the public.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2S.-This after
noon Scoville filed with the clerk of
the supreme court of the district of
Columbia papers on which he bases his
motion or motions for a new trial
Not being familiar with the practice in
this district, Scoville took the precaution
to file two motions to assure himself
against the possibility of being de-
prived through any legal technicality
of the right OF review by the court in
the general term. The papers filed in
support of the motions are, the pris-
oner's affidavit, the affidavit of Fred
erlck III. Snyder as to the finding of a
newspaper In the room occupied by the
jury under circumstances indicating
that it had been read by the jury. The
affidavit of ]. w. Guiteau, that he is
acquainted with the signatures of five
Jurors whose names are written on the
margin of the newspaper said to
have been seen by the jury. That
he has seen them write their
names and believes the witing upon
said newspaper to have been made by
the jurors named. The last affidavit is
that of Mr.. Scoville setting forth the
newly discovered evidence upon which
he based his motion for a new trial.
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30.-In the crimi-
nal court, District Attorney Corkhill
applied to the court to fix day for
hearing arguments upon the motion for
a new trial in the case of the United
States against Charles ]. Guiteau, stat
ing that he was willing that tomorrow
be assigned.
Scoville called the attention of the
court to the fact that one of the affida-
Wits in support of the motion had an
nexed to it copy of the EUeni1,g Critic.
The allegation was that during the
proceedings of the trial the paper had
been read by or to the jury. 1t bore
on the margin what purported to be
the signatures of four jurors. The Jurors
denied that they read any newspaper
or put their names on any newspaper
during the time they were impanelled.
This raised an issue of fact which was
very important to be determined. 1t
was not matter that the court could
determine upon expert affidavits The
jury admitted that during the time
they were empanelled they gave their
to various persons, and he
thought it might be important that he
should have an opportunity to cross
examine the men in that connection, to
determine whether the signatures on
the newspapers were genuine.
The full names ftwo jurors are on
the paper of the district attorney, and
one of them is spelled wrong.
Scoville said: "All these things show
the propriety of something more than
er parte affidavits in this matter. I
ask that the jurors be produced in
court, or that the court appoint COM
mission to take their depositions, and
that [ be allowed to produce such
further testimony as | think proper as
to the genuines of their hand-writ-
ing"
AS to the argument for a new trial,
he thought he could be ready by the
latter part OF the week. AS all the
questions he cared about taking up
were as to the newspapers and in re-
spect to newly-discovered evidence.
The court therefore fixed Friday for
arguments. The district attorney said
he did not intend the jury should be
put on trial. This newspaper looked
suspicious on face its. The person who
had filed the affidavit and who had
purloined the paper, had already been
bound over for forgery in the district
court. He 1.-THE district attorney
wanted to show the court that this was
a clever attempt at forgery. He would
not agree that the jury who had done
their work so faithfully, should be
placed on trial, and the oath of such
man placed against theirs.
The court stated there was no such
practice as appointing commission on
a question of this kind, but that it was
within the discretion of the court to in
terrogate parties making affidavits, and
he thought he would exercise it.
Scoviiie said he was perfectly willing
the court should interrogate the affi-
ants. When the district attorney came
here and alleged forgery, it became
serious matter.
The court suggested to the district
attorney it might be well to have the
jury present for that day, and the mat
ter went over for the present.
The ST. Louis MOI Dispatch at
the close of long article says In fact
oI, n;t -, II 1rtl,