Morning journal and courier., 1882-01-30
Assa assin Guiteau-His Lawyers Motion for a New Trial-NO Visitors Allowed to See the Prisoner.

Assassin Guiteau-His Lawyers Motion
 for a New Trial-NO Visitors Allowed to
 See the Prisoner.
 WASHINGTON Jan 29.-In the criminal court yesterday morning MT. Scoville, who was accompanied by Mir. Reed, was told in answer to his inquiry, that he would have to except specifically. He wanted until Mon day to file his motion for a new trial, but District Attorney Corkhill objecting to this, MT. Scoville stated that he would file his motion in the afternoon in the clerks office. The District attorney asked that the court assign Tursday next for the hearing of argu- ments upon the motion, but, upon represen- tations from Mir. Scoville that he would scarcely be able to enter upon the argument at that time, the court declined to fix day at present.
 Shortly before five o'clock in the afternoon MT. Scoville filed with the clerk of the Su- preme Court of the District of Columbia the papers upon which he bases his motion or motions for trial. Not being familiar with the practice in this District Mir. Scoville concluded to file two motions, to assure him. self 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 prisoners affidavit, the affidavit of Fred erick H. Snyder as to the finding of news paper under circumstances indicating that it had been read by the jury; the affidavit of J. w. Guiteau, that he is acquainted with the signatures of the five jurors whose names are written on hemargin of the newspaper (said | to 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 MT. Scoville, setting forth 1 the newly discovered evidence upon which he l bases his motion for a new trial MT. Sco- vile bases his motion for new trial on the following twelve points:
 Firstly reason of uncertainty in said 1 verdict, in that the jury thereby found the defendant ''gdilty as indicted" wherein the | indictment consists of different counts variant | from and inconsistent with each other in matters of substance.
 Second-That said verdict of the jury does not specify which count or counts of the in- 1 dictment it was founded upon and several | of the counts being materially different from the others the defendant is not advised by the form or substance of said verdict as to l the finding of the jury upon the material facts of the death or place of death of the deceased.
 Third-For that the trial of this cause was l commenced at the June term, 1881, of this l court and was not concluded in the same l term of court, but was extended into the l December term without authority of law. | Fourth-For that this court had no juris- diction of this cause, by reason that the death of the deceased had taken place outside of l the District of Columbia.
 1 Fifth-For that the court erred in over ruling each and all the prayers upon ques- tions of law asked by counsel for the defense, and in refusing to instruct the jury as re- l quested in each of the fourteen proposed by them, and shown on pages 1,756, 1,757 and | ,759 of the printed record in this case.
 Sixth-That the court erred on trial of this cause in excluding proper evidence offered by the defence, as set forth In the bill of ex- captions.
 Seventh-That the court erred on trial of this cause in admitting to go to the jury i'm proper evidence on the part of the prosecu- tion, as shown in bill of exceptions
 Eighth-That the court erred in com menting improperly during the trial upon the conduct of the defendant, and in enter ing into an arrangement with the District at torney (without the knowledge of counsel for the defendant) whereby the jury and the expert witnesses for the prosecution during portion of the trial might observe certain conduct of the defendant to subserve the
 purpose of the prosecution (the defense be-
 ing insanity) without the restraining power
 of the court being exercised, until those pur-
 poses were accomplished, to the great preju-
 dice of the defendant.
 Ninth-Misbehavio of the jury in read
 ing or hearing read to them newspapers cal
 culated to prejudice their minds against the
 defendant, as shown in affidavits of Fred
 erick H. Snyder, George 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 reasonable diligence on
 the part of the defendant or his attorney,
 having come to light since the trial. Shown
 in affidavit filed herewith.
 Eleventh-That the verdict is contrary to
 the evidence.
 Twelfth-That the verdict is contrary to the law of the case
 } MT. Scovilles bill of exceptions, to which he refers in general terms in his motion fol l a new trial. will be an excaadiuolz Yolumi