The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1891-02-04
WOOD WANTS A NEW TRIAL.
Reasons Set Forth by His Attorneys for the
Demand

RIcHMoND, Jan. 27.-[Special. Fox &
Robbins, the attorneys for James A.
Wood, today filed a motion for new trial
before Judge Comstock, In which they re-
cite the following reasons why a new trial
should be granted:
/. That the verdict of the jury is con
trary tolaw.
, That it is contrary to the evidence.
3. That the verdict is not sustained by
sufficient evidence.
/. For error of law occurring at the
trial; that the court erred in Overrulinc
defendants challenge to divers named
jurors.
,. Also, in everything defendants chal-
lenge to divers named Jurors who answered
that they had formed and expressed
opinions relative to the guilt or innocence
OF the defendant, partly based OH the pub
lished statement and affidavit OF James
Hannah.
8. Also in refusing to permit the wit
ness, Eben l.. Patterson, to testify on be-
half of defendant relative to a converse
ton with James Hannah, referred to in
said Hannan's affidavit and testimony.
:. Also in refusing to permit Dr. Pat
terson to testify that no such conversation
occurred.
s. Also in giving to the jury instruc-
fions to Is inclusive, 20 and p and "a to
80 inclusive.
9. Also in refusing to give to the jury
instructions ? TO S inclusive, asked by the
defendant
10. For the reason that Abram c. Stan
ley, while the jury was being empaneled,
and before it was sworn, stated upon his
oath that he was not related to Thomas J.
Bount, when he was so related, as stated
in the affidavit of John F. Robbins, filed
herewith.
II. Also because after the defendant
requested that the jury be kept together
and not allowed to separate during the
trial, and after the court so ordered, the
officer having charge conducted the jury
into u dense crowd, as recited in the al
fidavit of said John f. Robbins.
The affidavit of said John T. RobbinG
says that SANKEY'S grandfather's brothers
wife was a sister of Blounts paternal
grandfather.
The state will file cOunter-affidavits, oil
the bailiff and all the jurymen, showing
the jury was constantly under the charge
of the baliif, after being sworn, and that
while passing through the crowds in the
courthouse corridor they were not spoken
TO 10y anyone, nor did anyone speak in
their presence, on the subject of the case
that their judgment was not in any man
ner affected by anything they saw oil
heard and their verdict was rendered ex.
cusively on the evidence according to law
as they understood it. That the only
other point that they admit has any ap-
pearance of merit, is the alleged relation.
ship of the juror. Stanley. with Blount
the deceased, and that While the deceased
and Mr. Stanley had second cousins in
common, they themselves were not con
nected by cOnsanguinity nor affinity
and had no common ancestor. AS tC
the verdict being contrary to the law OF
evidence, they say that in this state, the
jury is made the sole Judge of the law and
evidence and having passed on these two
questions, and, as they claim, fairly passed
on them, that the court will hardly set
aside the verdict. That the court has the
power TO do 50, but in case of such i'm
portance where every point in favor of the
! defendant was brought out and the Jury
stood unanimous for conviction on the
first ballot, they DO not fear any interior
ence on the part of the court.
Judge COmstOck withheld his ruling
until tomorrow.