Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-09-16
DICKSON'S DICTUM
In the Star-Route Trial Set Aside on
the Ground Of UnreasOnableness
by Judge Wylie,
And New Trial Ordered-WalsI's Opin.
ion Of the Rascal-RumOrs and
SpeeulatiOns.

WASHINGTON, September l5.-In the
Criminal Court, Henkle, counsel for Miner
in the Star-route trial, filed various affda-
wits upon which he based a motion Tor q
new trial.
Merrick said: Il find some motions on file
for new trial in the case of the con vicied
defendants, accompanied by statements of a
variety OF reasons, and bv some sfhdavits.
Among the reasons is one, namely that
the verdict is in itself unreasonable. As
counsel for the government OF the United
States, sm not disposed to put on file =
consent to the granting of this motion, but
as the counsel fer the United States l feel
it my duty not TO oppose ii. The govern
ment of the United States itself is not en-
tirely satisfied by any means with this YER
dict. IL is a verdict which subjects the
masters to retrial, snd convicis servants and
minions. The jury, presumably, found evil
dence OF conspiracy to defraud the United
States, and of an overt act, so az to create
a completed crime under the statutes of the
United States, that having been found by
the jury prior to their determination of the
conviction of guilty against Rerden and
Miner, there was left for them only
the sole inquiry as to who was in
the conspiracy. 1t was apparent TO all
men that, deeply guilty in point of morals
and law as Rerdell and Miner are, The crime
they perpetrated was a scheme and device OF
the others. Now, sir, the government of the
United States cannot, consistently with its
dignity, object by practical resistance to the
motion made to set aside such verdict, and
bring TO trial again both masters and SER
wants, in order that full justice may be done.
The government of the United States seeks
no victim; il seeks simply Justice, and when
the verdict apparently trities with justice it
cannot meet the approval of the government
OF TIE United States.
4 IL, ,.,o,
he based his motion for new trial, and then
read Foreman Dickson's sworn statement,
which has already been published.
The Court stated that he had directed the
jury not TO converse on the subject OF the
alleged bribery. Whether or not the jury
had transgressed the rule laid down by The
Court does not appear from Dickson's affi-
davit.
Henkle proceeded to argue that the YER
dict should be set aside on the ground that
the jury had been tempered with, and IN
conclusion said the courtroom was dotted
all over with spoilers, whose business ii was
10 shadow Jurors, counsel and witnesses, and
some If the vilest men of this community
were right here all through this trial doing
that very thing in the service of the govern
ment.s
Merrick-In the service of the govern
ment?
Henkle-Yes, sir.
Merrick-Is there any affidavit OF this
sort on file?
Henkle-I have not any proof OF this now,
but / will furnish it when we get to investi-
eating the matter.
Merrick-When we come TO investigate
the matter we will reach the conclusion that
this approach of Dickson was got-Up thing
on the defendants side.
The Court then said that "as to the mis-
Of fha h.Nsl l.. q.
discussion as TO the bribery matter took
place in the jury-room. In the coasidera-
ton of the case, considering the rather inco-
herent character of this verdict i think it
will be safe for the Court to assume what is
conceded by counsel on both sides to have
taken place in the jury-room, and / will
award new trial"
Tsbriner, one of the jurors, happening 10
be IN the courtroom, was called to the wit
ness stand, and testified TO the reading of the
statement by Dickson after the retirement of
the jury. He said the jury voted in the
Affirmative upon the question as 10 whether
the paper should be read
The Court-What / wanted To know was
whether the jury had vie ated the directions
of the Court. That verdict of guilty, then,
as to Rerdell and Miner ia set aside, not
only on account of the misconduct of the
Jury, but, may say, on account OF general
uureasonablenes,; not that the Court would
have made this decision ON that ground
alone, because the. unreasonableness of the
verdict is for the jury rather than the Court
1nless the unreasonableness shock the Court.
These two men seem TO be at the two ends of
the line. 1t did not seem to my mind that
they could have gone into conspiracy with
out having had any of the others along with
them, but the jury thought they could, and
i would not have disturbed the verdict on
that ground; but when l see that verdict
was m ade up by jury that were discussing
other matters that were in evidence, the
course of my duty is plain TO set the verdict
aside. AS 10 the acquittal of Peck, who is
dead, 1 hope he is acquitted everywhere;
we were not trying him. AS 10 Turner, of
course the verdict stands. The Court grants
a new trial, therefore, to all except Turner
and Peck.
Miner and Rerdell were then released on
$1,000 bail each, Vale and Williamson be-
coming surety for the former and A. q. Rick
ards for The latter. December 4th was fixed
as the date for the new trial, and the court
adjourned.