Evening journal., 1890-01-03
ARGUING FOR NEW TRIAL.
GEORGE WILLIAMS DESIRES ANOTHER
CHANCE FOR HIS LIFE.


LAWYER HiIIes Gives His Reasons why q
New Trial should be Granted--A Verdict
Contrary to tho Evidence and Law,
so He Says.
In the Superior Court this morning an
inquisition was taken in the case of the
jackson and Sharp Company VS.. Frank
d. TalleY. The action was to recover
1923. 81, claim for work done for the
defendant. The jury gave judgment for
the amount claimed
Argument was made on the motion for
new trial in the case of George H.
Williams, colored, convicted of the mur-
der of Walter E. Wright during the
drum corps riot.
The prisoner was brought in between
the black and red tipstaves and put in
the box. W. S. Hilles, Esq, opened the
argument by stating the reasons filed as
follows: First, the verdict was against
the evidence second 1t was against
the law; third, it was con-
trary to law; fourth, the jury
was not impartial; fifth, John w Dayett,
one of the jurors, was related to the
murdered boy, Walter K. Wright sixth,
Thomas B Lyman one of the jurors, was
also related to the murdered boy sew
enth, when these jurors were accepted
their relationship was not known to the
prisoner or his counsel
The following propositions were made
by Mr. Hilles:
Can this court grant a motion for a
new trial in capital case2 The English
rule certainly is that in no case Of felony
car new trial be granted This rule, If
il rests on any reasons at ALL would seem
to be sole and lonely survivor of the
practice of the early English courts.
This rule has been greatly censured in
England, and has to use the words of
Judge Marcy, never been cOunteRanced
by our courts and would never be toler-
ated by our people.
Court may grant new trial where the
verdict is against the evidence or the
weight of the evidence.
] As the whole system of our law, civil
as we'll as criminal. rests upon the trial
by jury, so the whole fabric of the trial
by jury rests upon the assurance that
these twleve bon homines should not
only liberi ct legales, but omni excep-
tione majores; and throughout the whole
history of the common law, we are
struck by the many and for the most
part efficient gnards which the policy OF
the law has invented to secure this i'm
partiality of the jurors.
At common law the qualifications and
disqualifcations, of jurors were contain.
ed in the venire, and prominent among
the express disqnalifcations both in civ
il and in criminal cases, was the one that
the jurors should not be related,
either by blood or marriage, to the party
in the suit
The principal that one related by blood
or marriage to party, is incompetent t.
serve as Juror. is as as old as the tria
by jury itself. Il has always been helG
ground Of principal challenge that
Juror was related by blood or marriag,
to party, even of the ninth degree
Where it can be shown, to the salts
faction of the court that the objection
affecting the jurors competency was MOI
discovered until after the verdict, th'
moving party has the same right to
new trial, which he had to exclude thu
obnoxious Juror upon a challenge, ha,
the cause been urged before he wa
sworn.
A new trial is matter Of judicial dis
erection.
Mr. Hilles read copious extracts from
authorities and parallel cases in supper
Of each Of his propositions.
Ali the precedents Of the courts Of thi
state are against the granting of a new
trial in capital case. There are NJ
record of one having been granted. Th'
right of the court, with its power baseC
on old English law, to grant a new tria
is questioned The present case rise
several new and inconsidered points il
jurisprudence of this state.
Mr. Hilles spoke for over two hours.
Attorney General Biggs then began t.
speak for the state, against the motion
He first called attention to the law of tn
state, in regard to the qualifications o
jurors, and argued that the two juror
named by the state were not disqualife'
according to law
The affidavit of Thomas B. Lyman. ont
of the jurors, was read. He said tina
he was first cousin of the murdere'
boys mother He had not, however, ex
changed words with her or he
husband for twenty years.
did not occur to him VIII,
Walter e. Wright was until some
time after the beginning of the trial
He asserted that he was not biased b
reason Of his relationship.
Mr. Biggs argued at length against tn
power of the court to grant new trial Il
a capital case.
At o'clock court adjourned until 2S
o'clock this afternoon.