The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-01-28

Grounds Upon Which His Attorneys Base Their
Request-The States Reply.

Special to the Indianapolis Journal.
RICHMOND. Ind, Jan. GA motion filed
by Fox a. Robbins, attorneys for James A.
Wood, before Judge Comstock, this morn
ing. praying for q new trial. r~ecites the fol-
lowing reasons:
F~irst-That the verdict of the jury is contrary
to law.
second-That 1t is contrary to the evidence.
Ihird-That the verdict is not sustained by suf-
Fourth-For error Of law occurring at tho
uia.: That the court erred In Overruling.de-
fsnoant's challenge to divers named Jurors.
in overrullng defeDGant'e chal-
lenge to divers named jurors who answered that
they had formed and expressed opinions relative
to the guilt or innocence or the defendant, part
y based on the published statement and affidavit
sixth Also in refusing to permit the witness,
Eben I. Patterson. to testify on behalf OF de-
PENDANT relative TO . conversation with James
Hannah, referred to in said Hannan's affidavit
and testimony.
~seventh-Also in refusing to permit said DR..
Patterson 70 testify that no such conversation
occurred.
Eighth-Also In giving to the jury instruc-
tons 2 to Is inclusive, 20 and21 and "a TO 80 in
Ninth-Also in refusing to give to the jury In
efrucfions 2 to ; a r.usive. asked by the defend
Tenth-For the reason that Abram G. Stanley.
while the jury was being impaneled, and before
IT was sworn, stated upon his oath that he was
- " w hOihoS es A1tthhtp ~ hO a . ~
related, as stated in the affidavit Of John +. Rob
bins. filed herewith.
Eleventh-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
cited in the afidavit of said John +. Robbins.
The affidavit of John +. Robbins says
that Stanley's grandfather's brothers wife
Was o sister to Blount's p~aternal grand
father. The defense began its argument in
support of the motion about IL o'clock.
The attorneys for the Stste.iled counter
affidavits OF the bailiff aud all the Jury
men, showing the jury was constantly un-
der the charge of the bailiff after being
sworn. and that while passing through the
crowds in the courthouse corridor they
were not spoken to by IN one. nor did any
one speak in their presence on the subject
OF the case; that their Judgment was not in
any manner affected by anything they saw
or heard, and their verdict was rendered
exclusively on the evidence according to
the law as they understood it; that the
only other point that they admit has any
appearance OF merit is the alleged relation
ship of the Juror. Stanley, with Blount. the
deceased, aud that while the deceased and
Mr.. Stanley had second cousins in common,
they themselves were not connected by
consequently nor affinity, and had no COM
trary to the law or 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 so. but in a case
of such Importance. where every point in
favor OF the defendant was brought out
and the jury stood unanimous for convic-
ton on the first ballot, they do not fear any
interference on the part of the court.
The court took the matter under advise
mout.