The Evening critic., 1882-06-02
REEDS LAST MOVE
To Save Guiteau's Ncck-Hc Wants
the Jurisdiction Question RE-
opeued-But There IN No Prospect
of His Retng Successful.


Shortly after tho Court In General Term con-
vened this morning Mr.. Charles II. Reed,
counsel for Charles ]. Guiteau and on his
behalf, presented TO tho court petition for q
rehearing OF the case,
The papers state that ait appears by tho
record in said court, on page 1867, that the
said defendant at the proper time during his
trial in the criminal term of said court by his
attorneys asked and prayed the court to give
to the jury an instruction known as prayer
number 13, which was rs follows:
"The jury are instructed to ind separate
verdict upon zach count in the Indictment,
and inaemuch as 1t is charged in the first sec
ond, fourth, ffth, seventh and eighth counts
of the Indictment In this case, that the death
Of the President took place In the County Of
there is no evidence OF such fact, therefore the
jury are directed to find the accused not guilty
uftn H appears "a in page is4g OF tbe record in
said cause, that the Court refused to give said
instruction to tho Jury.
1t also appears in exceptions thereto that
the defendant at the proper time and In due
form OF law excepted to the decision OF the
Court in refusing TO give said instruction 20
1t appears conclusiveiy from the undisputed
record In said cause the deceased James A,
Garfield died in Monmouth County, State
OF New Jersey, and that no evidence was Of
fered or produced which showed or even
tended to show that he died In the District of
COLUMBIA.
l therefore respectfully submit that the said
instruction should have been given to the
jury. The defendant had and has the lawful
right to have an honest and truthful record In
said cause, and should not have been con-
victed and should not have been embarrassed
by a false record.
that the jury found q general verdict of guilty
against the defendant upon all the counts OF
the Indictment, and that the defendant re-
served by express consent OF the Court, and to
this refused to give instructions prayed by the
defendant to the charge. l submit that
the law requires, that, an Indictment
OF death, and that the evidence should sustain
such allegation. The District Attorney con-
count in the Indictment in this case contains
an averment Of the place OF death. If 1t was
necessary 10 aver place OF death, 1t was
necessary to prove it on the trial. All the pre-
cedents and authorities in England and
America require such an allegation, except the
single case in 10 Webb (Kansas), cited in
few Of the authorities in my brief, but can
cite numerous others II the Honorable Court
so desires. This Court in Its opinion in this
cause did not refer to this question and gave
no decision upon 1t. cannot believe this
Court will strike down the precedents and ai-
thorities in order to impose upon this defend:
petition this Court for q truthful record, con-
fldently believing my prayer Will be promptly
granted
CHARLES H. REED,
Attorney for Defendant.
June 2, 1882.
On the bench was Chief Justice Cartier and
Justices Cox and James, and District Attor
ney Corkhill was also present.
Mr.. Reed cited Bishops Criminal Pro
cedure (vol 4, sec. 104, page 1O7).
The Chief Justice said the court had de-
| cided right or wrong that the murder was
committed when the fatal blow was given.
Mr.. Reed asked II 1t was not necessary thai
| the averments Of the Indictment should not bt
| proved, and II there should not have been al
honest record.
honest trial, and he thought the record was
| complete. The matter, however, was ont
| sn which Judge Hagner should be consulted
and they would consider 1t to-day and an
| nounce the decision in the.morning.