The Wilmingtonian., 1886-04-24
TIlc Isnbinson Case.

inc ILODlnSOH SiSc'
Under the above caption there appeared
letter in the Morning N6tOs of last Tuesday
signed LEX" which contained two remarka
Bile propositions viz
/. That upon fair and impartial trial
Robinson was legally convicted Both court
and Jury were satisfied with the verdict. II
they could not tell whether or not he was
guilty, who could or who can?
o He was denied new trial after full
hearing of the motion ON the merits OF the
application = nor, as some enormously sup
rose, because the court had no power to
grant it. The court had the power and
always have had, and have it still and, in
in PROPER case, will no doubt, exercise ii.
Concerning statement No. /, we question
its correctness because one of the jurors, at
least, was SO prejudiced against the accns-
ed that it seems impossible that he could
have rendered an intelligent verdict,
When Walter Bacon Esq, the counsel Of
the prisoner, waived his objection to Alfley
lie was not aware Of Allfrey's repeated ex-
p.essons concerning Robinson. After the
trial and conviction Of Robinson it was
learned that when the jury empanelled to
try Davis for the murder of officer Peterson
were weighing the evidence, Alllrey, one of
said jurors, made this remarkable statement:
''Ir we were trying that - nigger Robin
=, s,r a, ~ t1of
effect
To talk of man having fair and and an
impartial trial with such juror is the sheer
est nousence.
Allrrey had decided upon Robnson's guilt
from the witness box and for aught we know
to the contrary AllGrey may have poisoned
the minds of the jury against Robinson with
statements irrelavent to the case at issue.
The jury was sworn to try the case by tie
and neither sympathy for the prosccntrix
nor prior charges against the accused should
HAVE cHlSltu lilO LilC SNsV'
1t will be remembered by those present at
the time the motion was made for new trial
that the Chief Justice declared that owing
to the anomalous position of the iurymar
Anricy that he was in favor Of defer.iug the
sentence Of Robinson until the court ceulC
have ample time for reviewing the matter
and in this opinion Judge Houston concurred
1t is here pertinent TO ask, If Robinson
had had a fair and an impartial trial woulr
Judges Comegys and Houston have demand
ed adeferling Of the sentence for weeks?
Our observation Mt the time of the argu
ment for new trial was, that there was
scarcely one present in the court room wht
did not feel that Robinson was entitled to
new trial and that Alfrey was entitled TO g,
to Jail for contempt Of court.
sI.ex' in his statement No ?, says: Rob
inson was denied new trial aftera fall hear
ing Of the motion ION the merits Of the ap
plioaton The correspondent Of the NeU
italicz2s on the merits Of the application,
will be observed however much this state
ment may BE- emphasized its falsity is non
the less conspicuous If the court Ind re
fused to reopen the case because of the il
sufficirney Of the evidence adduced by AT
torney Bacon there would have been a, ger
eral acquicscence III the verdict, but a ne'
trial was lened upon the sole grOuud tina
in Delaware there were NO statuatGry pre-
visions for hearing capital offences. judy
Houston, who tried this case, distinctly ST
ted, in reply to the argument for new trii
that he doubted the power Of the court
grant new trial, as there was no law III Il
State which provided for Il nov trial in.
case where there was conviction for a cap
tai offence that Delaware was one Of IL
few States whose statutes were based up(
tho old English laws, aud that the only hoI
for the condemned remained WITH the 9xe
utivc. Immediately upon the eXprcssi m
these views oy Judge Houston, Chief Justi
Comegys said that in view Of that the con
would hereafter receive no applications +
new trials for capital cases,
rhe law in Delaware is that When a mi
is convicted of a capital offence, whcth
Justly or unjnstly, that he mast dtr unlc
the Governor il tcrposes. ..-
The court has declare that IN ne ca
Whatsoever Of capital conviction will