Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-09-09
THE STAR ROUTE TRIAL.
NO VERDICT YET.
TEE JURY WANT INFORMATION
THE COURT INSTRUCTS THEM.
RECESS TILL SIX O'CLOCK M.

RECESS TILL SIX O'CLOCK P. Nj.
| The star route jury were summoned into court
last evening at six o'clock, according to Judge
Wylie's announcement The court room was
crowded when they came in many hanging about
the court house during the recess The foreman an
nounced that the jury had not agreed except as to
one OF the defendants. Judge Wylie said
the court could not take a verdict by piece-meal
and the jury would have To retire again. Another
| recess was taken until 10 O'Clock this morning.
The Jury was taken last night to the National
| hotel, and occupied the very rooms in which the
Gu!teau jurors spent nearly three months of their
existence.
In Court This lIorninx.
The jury was taken from the hotel to the court
| house this morning. At 10 O'Clock the court room
was crowded and it was difficult for those whose
| business called them there to gain admission All
OF the counsel were present OF course all sorts of
| views were expressed as to the standing or the
| jury, but no one had any positive information
Brady, who arrived late. remained on the outskirts
| OF the crowd in the court room. John w. Dorsey
! who sat near the counsel table, was accompanied
by one of the little sons OF Stephen W. Dorsey.
| Judge Wylie came upon the bench at a quarter
past ten. He said Immediately: "Ask the jury If
! they have any report to Make" and Deputy Mar
| shal Williams left the room.
The Jury Have Not Agreed.
Mr.. Williams returned in less than two minutes
and whispered to the judge that the jury had not
! agreed.
| Judge Wylie said. "Ask them to come down, 1
| want to say something to them"
| Mr.. Williams again parted. minute later
the jury appeared When the roll had been called
| the foreman announced that the jury had not
agreed upon verdict
| Judge Wyie said that as the court had taken a
recess he desired the jury come in and announce
themselves that they had not agreed. Judge Wylie
| Salu tnat the jury could retire again.
A Proposition from the Jurors.
Foreman Dickson, advancing. said :-"The jurors
desired me to present proposition in court and
submit it in writing"
Further instructions Of Judge WyIie.
Mr.. Dickson then handed up to the court piece
OF paper, and when the judge had read it he said:
'The jury have right TO be instructed by the
| court upon any difficulty In regard to the law
AS to the question OF fact. thatwas their province.
! Now will read your question, except the intro
duCtory part OF it
! The court then glanced again over the paper and
continued: sit seems from this that the Jurors are
divided in opinion in regari to whether there were
one or two cOnspiracieS after the 10th OF May 1879
That understand to be the substance Of the
question"
Mr.. Dickson nodded.
'.Well," continued the judge, sthat is question
day in regard to the law to be applied to the facts
in reference to that question ! can only repeat
III
mon that since the Goth OF May, 1879, the evil
dence shows that there were two conspiracies 1t
impossible to ind verdict under this indictment.
THIS is an Indictment for one conspiracy. But
| 1t Is not necessary that all the de-
fendants should be guilty. or none. I told
| you yesterday 1t might be that some were guilty
OF the conspiracy and others not AS to the effect
or the interchange OF interests between certain OF
| these defendants which it is claimed took place
about the 30th OF March, 1879. the court instructs
| you that no interchange of interest in contracts
| ought TO affect at all the question OF conspiracy.
Ii the conspiracy continued, still the interchange
| OF interest would nave no effect whatever upon
the conspiracy ITSELF. If was contractor on one
route on another, and on another, and these
| three were members OF conspiracy, then II in
terchanged his contract with b, gave his inter-
est away, and the same took place with c., they
all remained in the same relation to conspiracy.
Ii that IS the diff ,ulty, that is question OF law
which think | have right to say something
about. 1 was satisfied that without arrogating
the full power or the court, that this jury would
be content to accept with consideration the views
| OF the court on question OF law"
Exceptions of Counsel for Defense?
| 1--WE except to your honor's instruction, said
Mr.. Totten.
Juror McCarthy's Question.
Mr.. Dickson then submitted another question in
writing, which he said came from Juror Nc
Carthy.
"This," said Judge wylie, "ls a fair question for
Juryman to ASK
Further Remarks of the Court. Making
the Law Clear.
Continuing the judge said: "The question was In
substance, what the would be il the jury was
satisfied OF the existence OF conspiracy on the
part OF some or the defendants and dates of the
overt acts did not agree"
~ don't wonder gentlemen" said Judge Wylie,
''that your minds shond become somewhat con-
| fused In regard to an Indictment covering some
eighty-odd pages OF printed matter especially as
jurors are not accustomed to examine papers of
that character and don't know what
mass OF irrelevant matter is generally tumbled
into an Indictment l don't mean to say that
there is anything in this indictment that was not
prudent" The court said further that the indict-
ment was based on the act OF May 17th 1879. The
court read the statute. The jury, he said, had
been sworn to try the question OF conspiracy under
that law. Ii they believed that these defendants
or any OF them guilty OF that conspiracy that
was one step settled: The next question was as
to the overt acts There were forty or fifty pages
OF this indictment employed in setting out distinct
overt acts. 1t any one Of these overt acts were
correctly set out it was enough, although all the
others might be incorrectly set out. He had called
their attention yesterday to the Vernillion and
Sioux Falls route. He had himself compared the
9yeft h astt act IN the Indictment with that In proof
me overt act In that case correspondent In terms
ana dates with that in the Indictment, If they be-
lieyed the evidence. He had conhned himself as
route. II as matter of law, in their Judgment,
one conspiracy was established as in existence
Sata Snce ~ Nay 9 ls1s and it was in existence at the
oaCe VI lhese overt acts, or any one OF them, and
any one or thSe defendants belonged to the con-
splracy, the case was made out .ss
MIR. IngersOll, Mr.. NEerrick and the
Court
Mr. 1ngersoll said he would Hike the court to In
struct the jury that they must not consider any
overt act unless 1T had been proved exactly laid
ana That it was Impossible to make one defendant
responsible for what another had done unless the
relations between them was established.
the court here Interrupted Mr.. lngersoll. saying
that he did not intend to have questions argued
now. This was talk between the court and the
jury.
Mr. Merrick insisted in requesting, in reply
10 Mr lngersol, that the court Call attention
TO the dates or the orders OF Brady.
Inc Court said that Mr. Merrfck'S remarks were
unnecessary.
Judge Wylie Making the Law Clear AZ
to Overt AcfSs
Judge Wylie then repeated, in substance, what
he had said to the jury relative to overt acts say
Ing that II they found the proof regarding one
corresponded with the charge. that he told them,
under his responsibility to the law, sufficient
ssRe Siara 10