The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1888-06-01

submitted 70 the Juu5S JuS al1GayiJS OF
publication of the notice of application,
which had been published ill every paper
in the county. The law states that the
notice of application and hearing shall be
published in all the papers Of the county
designated to print the laws, two weeks
before such hearing is held, and as the
notices in the Pennsgrove Record and the
MONITOR were not published two weeks
in advance of the hearing, though they
had appeared in two numbers of each
paper, the editors of these papers were
placed on the stand and testified that their
papers were not designated TO publish the
laws; and as the notice had been published
in every other paper in the county two
weeks before the hearing, it was claimed
that the letter of the law had been full
filled, namely, that all the papers desig-
mated to publish the laws had given due
notice Of the hearing.
Col. Potter took exception to this,
claiming that as the Governor and
Comptroller had not as yet designated or
chosen the list Of papers in which The laws
enacted by this years Legislature were to
be published, no paper in the county was
so legally designated, and therefore the
notice of hearing had not been legally
given, and Judge Reed had no Jurisdiction
in the matter and could not legally order
an election. Mr.. Sinnickson maintained
that if zone of the papers in the county
were legally qualified to publish such no
tice, then no publication was necessary,
and the Judge should order an election, if
satisfied as to the other points.
Judge Reed ruled that the papers that
had by authority published the laws of the
Legislature of last year would be considered
legally designated, and ruled that the no.
tice Of the hearing was regular, and would
stand. No further objection being heard,
the Judge, on motion of Mr.. Sinnickson,
named Tuesday, September 4th, 1888, as
the day on which the election would be
held.
The case of Michael Whalen, who was
convicted May 10Th of having burned the
barn of E. B. Humphreys was then taken
up.
VIM. L. Potter, of Bridgeton, has, it APP
pears, been secured as additional counsel in
behalf of Whalen, and stated that he would
like to put in a plea for a rule to show
cause why a new trial should not be grant
ed in this case. Mr.. Potter stated that he
based his plea for a new trial on four
grounds, which he gave as follows:
First, the verdict of the jury was taken
in the absence of either the defendant or
his counsel.
Second, the defense claim that improper
communication was had by one of the jury,
through the constable in charge of jury,
with one of the principal witnesses for the
State.
Third, newly discovered evidence, show
ing that the statement of Halter that VIVA
len. came running down the street was
false, as it is impossible to see, from the
- r Al. ns-L# Nx -, a.a apr
the street.
Fourth, the sworn statement of Jacob
Halter that the testimony given by him was
false, and hat he was induced to swear to
the same by promise of reward.
In support of these statements a number
of afidayits were submitted by Mr.. Potter.
| The first was the affidavit of j. w. Acton,
who stated that he was not present at the
time the jury rendered their verdict, etc,
etc.
The next was the affidavit of William
| Fox, one of the jurors who convicted VIVA
len, who stated that he did not agree 10
the form of verdict as rendered by the fore
man of the Jury. The Judge interrupted
/ the reading OF this affidavit with the re-
mark that a man on a Jury who would let
the foreman give in a verdict. not in ac-
cord with his views, without making any
objection at the time. was not fit to serve
on a jury.
The affidavit of VIM. r. Casperson stat
ed that he saw Isaac Coles take from his
pocket a note, which he believed was writ
ten by one OF the jurors in the case, and
give the same to Charles II. Riehman.
The next was the affidavit of George w.
Barton and Samuel II. Paneoast to the ef-
feet that it was impossible for any one sit
ting on the bunk in Crothers' livery office
to obtain a view Of any one coming down
the street.
A letter was then read from Edw. Hall,
a detective employed in the ease before
| Whalen was arrested, written tu Halter, in
which it is claimed Hall had offered Hal
Ter a reward for swearing. The clause of
the letter from which such construction
was twisted referred to the threats which
interested parties in the case had been max
| ing against Halter. and stated that Hall
| would take care of him at and after the
trial.
The last affidavit read was that of Jacob
Halter. and said to have been made by
| him, in which he states that the greater
| part of his testimony given at the trial was
| false in every particular and he swore as
he did in the hope and expectation of Sc
| curing reward. This remarkable docu-
ment was sworn to before John Holmes,
on May Goth, in the presence of William
Tinker, of Philadelphia.
After a short consultation with the other
Judges, Judge Reed granted a rule to show
cause why a new trial should not be or
dercd, which will probably be argued at
the October term of court.
Elwood Lopez, of Elmer, was fined $50
and costs, which amounted to about $500,
for refusing to receive a subpoena rendered
him by S. II. IIawn, of Elmer, in the Tall
man license case at Elmer, tried at Janu-
airy term.
Martin Schneitzler, also of Elmer, was
fined the same amount for ~disregarding a
subpmna served in the same case.