Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1890-01-15
FOURTH EDITION


New Trial Tor George Williams.
In the case of the State vs. George
Williams, New Castle County Court OF
Oyer and Terniner, November, 1883,
tried and convicted, and motion for new
trial, Ciief Justice Comeeys delivered
the opinion on the rule to show cause
why . now trial shall not be granted. In
purport the discussion Ia TO the effect
that the Chief ground relied upon in the
argumt mt upon the rule in this case, to
show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside and new trial granted the
prisoner, Is that William {. Lyman, one
OF the jurors, was a relation OF the boy
Wright who was killed, viz, second
cousin by blood, the fact not being di..
closed until the verdict was rendered. !
The other grounds ure the usual ones for |
Y new trial
The AT rley General contended that
the court had never yet granted a new
tral In a capital case, and would be re-
pugnaut TO common law. That n con-
mon law rule OF disqualification does not
apyly TO a relationship between the party
slam and a juror, but only to Juror
aud party to a trial, and that the sub.
ject OF a homicide is not a party TO the
indictment upon which the prisoner Is 10
be tried. And secondly this object 10
avail should have been developed before
the tri began. The suitahleuess Of MIR.
Lyman as juror was duly inquired
into, but nothing said es 10 relationship.
We must think the inquiry was to
find out every possible ground OF objec-
titn
While no new trial has been granted
In such case, motions for such have Of.
ten been made and never denied Oh the
ground OF want OF power TO grant the m
The presumption is in favor OF the power
to grant We have TIE great body OF the
English common law and sueh statute
law as is virtually part OF It, but we are
not bound by every part of the common
law, but such as concerns our condition
and circumstance.
By the common law (and We have nt
statute on The sulject) any one relate
by blood, or marriage, rs remotely As To,
ninth d. gree, even 10 party in a trial /
subject to challenge, propier ailectum
that Ia on account of the Likelihood OF
suspicion of bias or pred uilcs AMI n,
evidence TO the contrary will be heard.
The fact constitutes d specialization
1t is evident, therefore, that an impurtla
trial, In contemplate of law IN civ
- cAses. cannot be had when such kin.li
exists; nor by the constitution iD Grim
nal cases, treating the victim as fn tn,
light VI party. Alter citing the Decla.
ration Of Independence, the judge zoe
on to ttate that any rue at vsr Ile " Is
tn curly OF lille, ltei,y and tue pui
suit oil happiness is not suited to our coI
dition and circumstances. There /
England a remedy Tor a verdict whic
should not have been rendered--a rrspif
OF execution until appeal can be made /,
The Sovereign for pardon or conmuti
ton OF sentence. Wheneyer a I r
bubal receives verdict OF guilty. Is
case involving life suspends its or er Il
execution Oh the grounI OF a wreng ye
dict or otherwise, relief against II follow
As matter IL course. 's Governor
may pardon.
1he opinion shows the courts, upo
reasonable appl cation, review tie eyi
dshtial features d a trial Gnd their ow
rulings a;d set aside Nerdicts on III
proper evidence. The p isuner til.
as in civil case. The substance OF II
lay granting new tsial ia given in ii
opinion which closes with the tollowil
paragraph:
''These views influence us To reea
With approval the motion in 81 case
. new trial On tic ground OF the relatiu
thip OF the juror Lyman TO tic un ,
tunate boy lain.
And we have no officially whatever
deciding Tor a new tIal-lu the face
the objection of the Attorney. Geme. a
that exception to the juror Is not ii
perry entertainable here, the relation
individual party aud party not ex sfl
in a or minal csst-beCause the uppC
tunity hered to a blood kiusinau ul
party lied by aLuther uu.INfu.ly I
being juror upon C alleged = aye
trial) 10 be revcnged tos the crime q
mitted upon his kinsman, weuld b
temptation that would dtsQualiiy IN
mel TO ,iew til evidence pro and c
With airy reasonable gree OF farm
and impGrtisliy, and might cen tr
m to illd verdict OF guilty.
In passing upon sich cues lon
this the person slain ought to be ttCa
as party 10 the Proceedings. car ju
Renti therefor ittl.itt t. iLlle To 81
cause De tnsde HbsalL e, that til. ycf5
he set aside AMI new VIA grAuted u
the ground vi The relationship vi
juror Lyman 10 Wright, tie patty y
The killing ii whom lae pIsoQui
charged IN the indictment
Judge Houston delivered al rlalo
opinion showing why be had Changed
mind siuce his consideration Of the
berry case. He eoncurati in lis upiI
with the Chief Justice, aud spoke
great cesrntss, iofce aai fefFor.
members ot he bar were ont II Il
numbers and taid H." q ',n-t attrnt