The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-01-30
SCONILLE'S SQUEAL
ON THE VERDICT OF THE JURY.
Twelve Specification, Slrratluv the GsOuld,Orth,
Defense fSrA New Trinl-Ths Claim that
the Jury was Tanpsrsd with IsdlE.
nAntly Rspsllsd By JursrI.

ScoYtile concluded to file two motions "a
assure himself against possibility Of be.
ing.deprived through any legal TECHNICAL.
ty Of right Of the review Of the court in q
general term. Tho papers fled in support
Of tue motions, are the prisoners affidavit,
affidavit Of Fred H. Snyder, as to the find.
ing Of a newspaper in the room. occupied
by the jury under circumstances indicating
that 1t had been read by the Jury; the afli.
davit OF j. w. Guiteau, that he Is acquaint-
ed with the signitures OF five jurors whose
names are written on the margin Of news.
paper said 10 have been seen by the Jury;
that he has seen them write their NAMES,
and believes the writing upon said news.
paper to have been made by the Jurors
named. The last affidavit Is what Mr.,
Seoville sets forth rs newly discovered
evidence, upon which he bases his motion
for a new trial. The first paper Is motion
for new irial upon the following grounds:
Fint-,By reacon OF the uncertainty n
said verdict, in that the Jury found deien,l-
ant Guiteau, guilty US 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 Indictment 1t was founded upon,
and several Of the counts being materially
different from others, the defendant is not
advised by the form and substance Of said
verdict as tn 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 case
was commenced ut 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 has no iu-
risdiction Of this cause, by reason Of the
death OF the deceased having taken place
outside OF the District OF Columbia,
Fitth-For that this Court erred in over.
ruling each and all the PRAYERS upon
questions Of law asked by the defense, and
in refusing to instruct the jury as requested
in each Of the fourteen prayers proposed by
them.
Sixth-That the Court erred on the trial Of
this cause by excluding the proper evidence
offered by the defense, as set forth in the
bill Of exceptions.
Seventh-That the Court erred on thetrial
ofthis cause in admitting to 90 to the iury
improper evidence on the part Of the pros.
eution, US shown in the bill OF exceptions.
Eighth-That the Court erred in comment.
ing improperly during the trial upon the
conduct Of the defendant, and in entering
into an arrangement with the District At
torney without the knowledge OF counsel
for detendant) whereby the jury, and cx-
pert witnesses for the prosecution, during a
portion Of the trial, might observe certain
conduct Of the defendant TO subserye the
purpose Of the prosecution (the defense
being insanity without the restraining
power of the Court being exercised until
those purposes were accomplished TO the
great prejudice OF the defendant.
Ninth-Misbehavior Of the Jury in read.
ing or hearing read to them newspapers
calculated to prejudice their minds against
the defendant, as shown in the afIidayits
Of Frederick II. Snyder, George ScoyiIle
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 defendant or his attorneys,
having Come TO light since the trial as
shown in the affidavit filed herewith.
Eleventh-That the verdict is contrary
to the evidence.
Twelfth-That the verdict is contrary tc
the law Of the case.
tSigned.1 GEoRGE ScovIttR
Defendants Attorney.
The second paper filed is bill OF ex.
ceptions and contains the same points rs
made in the motion for new trial.
Guiteau in his affidavit says, as he is re,
strained OF his liberty he is compelled tc
leave the whole matter OF n new trial tC
Scoville. The affidavit OF Frederick II
Snyder, Of Jersey City, sets forth that he
was aguest at the National Hotel during 4
portion Of the month OF December and oc.
cupled a room near those occupied BY the
jury in the Guiteau case. On one occasion
he saw the door OF one OF tho rooms, so oc
cupied, standing open, but with no person
therein, and on the table OF said room was
n newspaper, and knowing it was forbidden
tho jury to have newspapers, he (Snyder)
slipped in and took the paper, which he
found was copy Of the Ereaing Critic con.
tanning an account ofthe attempt of Jones
TO shoot Guiteau and an editorial denounc.
ing the prisoner. On the margins were
either the names or initials Of five OF the
jurors. In the interests OF Justice he took
the paper to Scoville.
Attached TO this affidavit is n copy OF
The Critic alluded to, with the names Of
the jurors mentioned written in ink upon
the margin. The affidavit OF Scoyille il
TO the effect that he believes the names o.
the jurors were written on the margin O.
the paper described in Snyder's affidavit.
by the jurors themselves, and that sire.
the trial new and material iacts showing
the insanity OF the prisoner have come tC
his knowledge. The main reliance OF the
defense is the affidavit OF Snyder and the
copy OF The Critic appended to it, which II
Is claimed was seen and read by the Jury
pending the trial.
A careful comparison OF the writing upor
the margin Of the newspaper, with the sig
natures OF the jurymen, whose names ap
pear there, showing n striking resemblance
establishes strong case OF circumstan
tial evidence. This district attorney, how.
ever, asserts that this matter OF tamperin,
with, and the irregular or improper con
duct on the part Of the jury, as set forth il
the Snyder affidavit, will be dispensed O
in short order by the prosecution. Thl
jury themselves are quite indignant, ant
firmly deny the charges Of improper con
duct on their part.
WAsulSoroN, January 20.-The four Jury
men whose signatures, It Is alleged, appeal
on an extra Critic appended to the afiday
its filed by the defense in the Guiteau cas-
Saturday, with amotion for new trial, den,
most positively that the copy Of that or an;
others was ever in their apartments ut th
hotel, and declare they never had pen il
their hands during the whole course OF th
trial except to write autographs for outsid
parties, and that this was always done in
room occupied by the bailifF and in th
immediate presence o. these officers. Th
general impression with those who hay
examined the matter Is that It is a cles
piece Of forgery,
SHOT ny SOLDIERS.
81 A