The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-03-09
THE COURTS.
United states District Court-Hon.
E. b. Turner, Judge, Presiding.

United States VS.. Reuben Boyce on
motion to arrest judgment and for new
trial. Motion granted. Judge Turner,
in delivering his opinion yesterday morn
ing, on the motion, adverting to the con-
fiict of testimony on the trial between
the governments witnesses and those of
the defense, in connection with the aft
davits of DR.. Fields and Mr. Holland,
filed as part of the motion, said that
he did not view their effect as Gu
mulative evidence, but as pri-
mary and material, in supporting
the testimony tending nto establish the
alibi, as they determi led couclusively
the date Of the death of he little child of
Mr.. Anderson, around which the testi-
mony of the witnesses establishing the
abb clustered, and of the fact that Bird
Holland was road overseer of the
road claimed to have been worked by
defendant on the very day of the rob-
berry, which facts, if true, would show
the defendant to be innocent of the charge
These facts, now made to appear by un-
mistakable evidence, were left on the
trial merely on the memory of the wit
nesses, and moe or less confused, and
part of which, as TO Hollands being road
| overseer for 1876 and 1877, was ruled
out on the trial, because not made to ap-
pear in legal manner. He recognized
no rule of law that would not warrant
him in ENGRAVING upon it an exception,
/ if he was convinced of the fact that
the additional evidence adduced would
tend to show that an innocent man had
been convicted. In terse and vigorous
language he deprecated the harsh criti-
cism of the district attorney, the jury
and the marshals, INDUCED in by coun-
sci, as not warranted. Adverting to the
affidavits of the jurors, filed as part of
the motion, Judge Turner said that
when the verdict was deliv-
cred to the court, that the court, at the
request of defendants counsel had polled
the jury, and that each member of the
jury in open court had recorded
the verdict as his, and such being the
fact he attached no consideration what.
ever to an affidavit of each juror i'm
peaching that verdict. Abiding to the
conduct of Deputy Marshal Mcfarland
in connection with the celebration of the
jury, he relieved him from any improper
motive in so doing, but hoped and de-
s red to state that no such conduct
would or should ever be at
tempted again in his court AS an hum
| Ulc HnciAuCI du0 OllCcT Vi Tic OnlI6Q
States government, he had always at
tempted to demean himself in his office
in such manner as to command the re-
spect of the public but from those who
disliked everything federal he could not
expect this.
Major West being present, arose and
stated that in his argument on the mo-
ton he intended no reflection upon the
| court he din aftlarfaiYl iAao
that the court participated in, or was
knowing of, the Irregularities complained
of that it had been his duty as counsel
for his client TO criticise, but that should
it ever be necessary and proper for him
in the discharge of that duty to criticise
the action of the court he would not
hesitate to do so.
Beattie, ct al. compliments, vs. Hol-
land, ct. al, defendants decree and
judgment for compliments entered and
recorded.