The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-02-04
Judge Woods 0verrules the Motion for
New Trial of the Conspirators.
Gov is Sentenced to Eighteen Months Impris-
onment and Fined 500. while Bern
hamer Gets Year and ST. 900 Fine.
The Counsel of the Prisoners at Once APP
peal to Judge Gresham for Relief.
Refers Them to Justice Harlan-How the
Convicted Men Received the Sentence.

The scene in the United States Court room
yesterday morning, when the motion for new
trial of Coy and Bernhamsr, the convicted cleo
ton conspiratorr, was heard. had the coloring Of
promscuous gathering and intense interest as
to the result The convicted men. as far al
their concern was manifested in action and
speech, might have been taken by one who did
not know them as tho least interested of the
! crowd But those who were acquainted with
the daily manner of the men could that they
appreciated the force OF their condition. Coy
had laid aside somewhat his jaunty adj
dress, but now and then be would laugh over
some trivial remark if he thought it the
raciest of jokes. Bernhamer, too, did no. spread
himself throughout tho room as he was in the
habit of doing when the trial was on. His face
was pale and evinced considerable nervousness
Both men were anxious for at no time have
they or their attorneys attached much
hopes to the formal proceedings instituted
to keep off imprisonment as long as possible.
They anticipated failure 10 the District Court
with only the uptIisd resources of a hearing be.
fore the circuit judE- to give them tho last
chance before the penitentary doors would open
to the convicted men.
o'clock, Judge Claypool for the government
moved to strike from the files and records of the
case the afidavits presented in support of the
motion for new trial He said they all
incompetent, but to protect the government two
counter affidavits had been secured, which he de-
sired to introduce. Judge McNutt said that the
motion to strike from the files should include
these latter sffidavits. but before this action
should be taken he wished to present in evidence
the MesscK kilograms tho first of which, adj
dressed to the juror, read:
Your mother is dead. Come you
The reply from Mr. Messick was
will try to get there No. 3. Send word to my
folks.
The train mentioned was the one that left here
at 9 o'clock Saturday night.
Following this came the reading by Mr.. Bus
kirk of the motion for q new trial, and the afida-
Wits, as they have already been detailed. Dis
trict Attorney Sellers read the counter afidavits
of Jurors Messck and Davis, that of the former
stating that the telegram he received twas not
used by him to influence other jurors to agree to
a verdict, nor was it used for such
purpose I by any one eise .n nor was was
by him any one else for such purpose.
He was not influenced thereby In the 6elibera-
tons of the jury, nor had be any reason TO be-
lieve, did he believe, any Juror was infu-
the verdict. He voted many ballots for convic-
ton before tho telegram came into his hands.
The verdict was reached before the jurors went
to supper Saturday night. The foreman and all
others had signed II. after which it was incosed
il a sealed envelope. At supper he did not OBJ
serve any juror under the influence of intoxicat-
ing liquors. did tho conduct of any one OF
them suggest such was the case. Foreman
Davis made no representations whatever In re-
gard to the sentence that would DO imposed.
Relative to M. T. Stokes, tho Sentinel re-
porter, Mr.. Messick stated that this person fol-
lowed HIM all night until it was time for him to
leave for home. Stokes asked him 1t the tele-
gram Influenced the jury, and the afiant said it
had not. ''You know" he told Stokes. las well
as do, that the defendants are guilty"
~ do" Stokes replied. I'm my heart do.
but we hate to see Smmy CO." He further said to
this reporter that the telegram did not have the
least influence on the jury.
The affidavit of John l.. Davis, the foreman of
the jury supported that of Juror Msssick in all
particulars except as to the conversation with
Stokes, of which the xfiant knew nothing Mr..
moved to return verdict against ell of the de-
PENDANTS. 1t was put to the jury, and
Gardener voted for it. When the
Messick telegram was received Mr. Messick told
him that his step-mothsr Was dead, but he made
outward demonstration of grief nor did he en-
treat the Jurors to vote for conviction on account
statement to the jury about the pro bable sent
ence of the court, nor did be say the defendants
would only be fined. nor did any other juror in
his presence make any such statement. ALI that
was said by him was when he gave it as his ,
opinion that if Matter should be found guilty
his punishment would be light. No juror was
importuned to vote for q conviction on any rep
resentation to what the punish ment would
likely be- James Peters. just before tho jury
decided on it's verdict, proposed to vete to con-
Wet all three of the defendants, but his prop
osition was not accepted, he then voted to con-
vict Coy and Bernhamer. The affant said thar
he had no knowledge whatever as to what
the sentence would be. nor did he pretend
to have any such knowledge
Judge Woods, in correcting one OF the state
ments in affidavit fled in behalf of the con-
victed men. said no did not the Messick
telegram, but had been told that it contained
bad news. After this the argument both for
and against the motion was briefly presented
that for the government by Judge Claypool be-
ing principally citation of authorities to show
that affidavits by jurors or persons to whom
they had made statements could not be ac-
ceptsd in destroying verdict Nor could the
mere fact of n juror taking drink of liquor be
urged against verdict unles it could be shown
that such an act influenced the jurors vote
Judge McNutt. in support of the motion for a
trial, regarded the telegram having
affected the jury's deliberations, and did not
think the verdict under such circumstances
should be allowed TO stand. Mr.. Buskirk
claimed that the drinking of liquor by jurors
while celebrating on the facts in case before
them sufficient to set aside any verdict
they might reach.
Judge Woods added some material informa-
tion concerning tbs telegram incident. He re-
ferred to it in reviewing the matter raised by
tho afidavits in saying that Messick went home
Sunday. 22d ult.. and upon his return told HIM
his mother was dangerously sick On the days
following he inquired OF the juror as to his
mothers condition, and told him that in thu
event of her death arrangements could
be made to allow him to at
tend the funeral. Nov" continued tho
judge what is the common-sense view OF this
matterT Messick knew that his mother was at
the point of death all the time, and his greatesr
ANXIETY must have been to SEQ her again in life
If the situation tended to dsaualify him. this
was more the case before her death than after
The telegram settled in his mind that be could
never see his mother alive again. and he already
had the assurance of the court that he would be
allowed to attend her funeral. 1t seems to me.
the face of the thing. that tho telegram
no disturbing force In the minds of the
jurors; but the contrary, the antecedenf
facts make the inference the other way But
il is not left to inference ., for we have tbe
testimony of two of the jur., themselves that
it did not influence their verdict, and that Mes