New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-02-05
THE PROCEEDINGS IN COURT.

THE PROCEEDINGS IN COURT
WA,UNGTON, Feb 4.-FOr the first time III
The history of the Guiteau trial, there were vacant
chairs in tho body OF the courtroom to-day ana OF inc
small audience not than dozen were women Al
few moments past o'clock the prisoner was brought
In and took hi seat az the counsel laDie 'h TIC oo
was then formally opened.
Mr scoyc stated that ne had received rehabe hior'
nation that Curuss not one of the b'n' IN chaIse
OF the Jury at the time The Erc"'ng cruz was
taken from tie room by Snyder, but that one
sbicr was In charge; that ne knew about the paper
and that he stated 10 person whom C-covileD could
call a. witness that. If the TACT as 10 That paper came
ont he would have to lump the town" Mr. scoville
said that he merely mentioned this to show the hnp'F
fancc OF the Court ea,efug INTO some examination
The D4,tfct-AtoTney protested against the case DelhS
postponed account OF amy anonymous letter "h'cu
Mr. sco,Ille mi ghi receive II would be highly mProp-
er the Court To- 60 into any examination oil the mat
ter Curu~s hal sworn that be was 'he haihu ana the
Jurors had sworn to the same fact II would not Toe
proper to put them ON trial
judge then procc, dcd TO render hls decision Wlch
,ya- listened to attcntivclv from beginning
10 end lie said tIat the motion TO set ASIDE
the verdict and grant new trial had h5eh nastd on
various grounds, only two Of which were made the suo
iccts OF DISCUSSION and need 10 be considered by the
Court The fret ground, IN substance was tudl certain
pews,,,er matter calcula ed to prejudice the minds OF
The AIRY against prisoner found in one I'll the
rooms a--icd to the jury. and passed under thcr OK
animation and Inspection Undoubtedly, II any undue
influence had been used 10 bring about the verdict 1t
would he good ground FOR setting It aside aud the fact
thai matter in writing print calculated to prentice
the jury into their possession ana was examined
by them was ordinarily considered as sufficient ground
10 vacatc the verdict Bpt the legal utendment was III
favor Of the verdict, and no verdict ought
10 be disturbed aud certainly none which had
been effected after so much time and labor
rs this one, without clear and satisfactory reason for IT,
Some pertinent observations on TINS subject were 1ouno
IN the People VS. Galney us SheldOns Rep) in which it
was decided that justice should not be defeated on the
mere SUE plcio II Of improper influence on the jury
The first testimony relied upon support OF this a.
leed ground was the aidavItof Snyder to the effect
that certain paper found by him IN one OF the
rooms occupied by the jury To the mere tact that IN
the absence OF the jury PAPER OF whatever character
WA. found in the vacant tie Court could attach
mo- Significance or weight, for the reason that
IL was within the power of anybody to place
The i,ucr there IL WIS in the power oil
auy friend Of the prisoner to 90 So
I, was In the power of the alin himself to do so lie
might have placed It there ana afterward found H. ana
That FAC, would not inconsistent with The truth OF the
affidavit The Court did to express any opln-
i'm AS TO Suydrrs completely TINS transaction, hut ne
simply stated this to show the facility with "Aich lh'
state Of facts could he brought about dcsigncdy prs
oner wod.d have nothing 10 10 but get friend tocom-
init the very trick tuIt suspected ana chiged ny H'
Government In this very and that fact alone would
not Influence the Court M tn slightest decree Ana the
nda,it- bas and the jury showed that TINS was
not the any Of the Jurors hn was the room q" me
bain which the jurors resoriei Gee asonaS Tor the
purpose of sSnus their autographs, nut always uh''ef
IL. ohsrr, alton ot the haiIhs
IL was further testified however 10y Johh W. Nul'e"u'
that cent ain siguatures appearing on tins paper were IN
Tbs Handwriting OF The jurors II that were True would
follow tat tue paper WAS under their ooseI'd ana
I'm their hands II was somewhat surprising at hI@t I"
mad the nycrmcnt that the aGnt was acquainted win
off No 0byDI-iN that EuOWl
elce could not have been acquired In the ordinary way
in the regular of business or social intercourse
II did not appear except by statements al the bar how
that knowledge had becn acquired The inference was
thai II mad been acquired Ivy procuring the auto
graphs of those Jurors for this special purpose.
When IL W.. acquired did not appear and that might
hc an gp1rant qucs u m ght have been acquired
before iLr making OF the AFFIDAVIT for tie express pur
1lpo OF allow Ing the affidavit 20 he made, and there
va great doubt whether knowledge acquired in that
way qualified person to testify aS TO haudWritinG
sucb case appeared in Sycamore O2th Adophus
and I..,J. II was q subject Of doubt whether If this
know ledge had been acquired for the express purpose OF
qualifying alaut to testify in this case 1t made MIN
competent witness and 1t obvious that this khowl-
edge was acquired under certain bias and uuccr cir
,rst, ucc. which took away from the influence which
would attach TO it If acquired IN the regular way.
Therefore Il was that he thou ht this affidavit one
of aonJtful ,upeeucy and doubtful weight He bad
NOT given close criticism TO the writing the paper but
which were somewhat Suspicious
The letter II in the initial OF Mr. Brights name was
written "a two three different ways'and MrIenlelhs
name was spelled in two ways ana each wrong whch
mode il extremely improbable thai those gentlemen
,ud have written the themselves. on che Oiher
hand a. opposed 10 the affidavit Of Mr. Guiieau, were
,he wits OF the four gentlemen whose NAMES were
p,uprtcd TO be the paper aud who testified that the
-,es ~ ere not in their handwriting The other jurors
ala pot urciepd to know tine handwriting OF their CO.
;uror. hut united I'm swearing ha- no such paper was In
The room al all. And stili he could conceive
,ba, these. Jurors were honestly mistaken; he could
conceive the state of facts as was supposed
l,y inc counsel for detence-inat ihls newspaper
nearly month old ut the me II was sald 10 nave oeeh
FOUND was living in the room Of the baiG aud that those
gentlemen before writing their autographs, tired Their
pen or ink by scrbbling paper and yet were 50
unsuspicious 10 ignore its presence and To DE con
scientionsy convinced such paper was there at
all lie could conceive that OF facts TO exist, but
could hardly believe It existed after the unanimous af
,ayits OF the bas and jurors that paper under
their observation at all Supposing such state o. things
10 exist. what could be the consequence
The only effect fact would be raise suspicion
a, nrobabe inference that the contents OF paper
were brought 10 the notice OF the jury but that
susnicon and IN inference that might De repealed In
This case there was no conflict OF testimony 10 the
onepis of the paper having been seen by the jurors
4, WAS the unanimous testimony Of all OF them tnat
neither that nor any other paper was read by them
There were several reported III tue BOOKS III which
:, ,e,ed that newspapers other forbidden matters
bae found their way into the Jurys rOOm ana ye' the
,c had not been held 70 be affected by that crcum
stance The Court here quoted the case OF HICKS Vs.
Tnnrino IS Pickering where though forbidden paper
as,a s.,rK-