The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-04-22
Judge Hunt Gives the Journal
Round Scoring in His
Oral Opinion.
Jackson's Attorneys Will Now
Appeal the Case to the
Supreme Court.
Two Insanity Cases in the Court Yester-
day-The Days Record of
Proceedings.

Judge Hunt yesterday overruled the mo-
ton for new trial in the case of the state
VS.. Albert jackson. The opinion which
was given orally. covers the salient points
on which new trial was asked. The de-
PENDANTS counsel argued that the court was
wrong in permitting Mrs. Laveille to an
swer the question as to whether she said
she would commit suicide if Jackson was
not executed. The opinion holds that every
opportunity was given to receive the fullest
evidence from the witness, who was upon
the witness stand nearly six hours. All of
the objections of the state were overruled,
except the ono concerning the question
above quoted. The court believes that the
answer was immaterial as to the result of
the trial. Concerning the point that the
court erred in permitting the state to read
all of the evidence at the
coroner's inquest the court holds that
if any part OF the evidence has been contra
dictory it would have appeared in the read
ing. As to the point that the verdict was
contrary to evidence, the court believes
that the verdict of the jury was just and
was in accordance with the evidence. 1.-The
fourth and most important point the de-
PENDANT has in the c1ne in my opinion said
the court, lis that the jury were permitted
to read the newspapers. The defendant
produces several atfidavits as to newspapers
being found containing references to this
trial during the first day or two after the
jury were empanneled. There was but one
of these accounts upon which any error
could have been presumed or any prejudice;
that was the one contained in the Helena
Journal.
Il do not know who the editor of the
journal is, what his name is and do not
fsp 10 nf {hn AZ ,f id
profession and wholly unfamiliar with the
province of respectable journalism towards
n court pending the trial of capital case.
The account in the Journal contained re-
Elections and structures upon member of
the bar interested in this case, and certain
ant then being tried. A baiiff who was
sworn to take charge of the jury comes in
with an affidavit that he knew that the
jurors read these papers from remarks that
he heard them make. He does not give a
single remark that he heard them make or q
fact upon which he bases that conclusion
co which he has sworn. AS against his af-
fdavit are the unqualified atfidavits of ten
of the jurors and two others that if they
read the accounts at all they were read
carelessly and made no impression upon
their minds, and in no way influenced their
verdict in the case. It is a lesson to me;
will never syun again permit .rea bai
either side Of case to have charge
Of a jury" Concerning the point raised that
Mr.. Nolan had no right as county attorney
to take the atlidavts of the jurymen, the
court thinks that this cannot stand as an
objection. The point that new evidence
could be produced was not discussed i'll
opinion and it was not emphasized in the
arguments for new trial. The case will
be appealed by the defendants counsel to
the supreme court of the state.