The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1892-02-26
TEXT OF THE DECISION.
The Arguments Analysed by the Court
to Counseps Kuoyl,dpe. etc.

The Arguments Annlyzed by the Court-As
TO Counsers Knowledge, etc.
Below is the full text OF the opinion
rendered by Judge Campbell:
The State OF West Virginia vs.. George
]. Garrison; indicted for tho murder Of
DR.. George Baird; tried at April term,
1891, and found guilt OF murder in tho
second degree-on q motion to set aside
tho verdict, etc.
The grounds urged by counsel for
setting aside tho verdict may DO stated
rs follows:
First. In permitting Juror Bell, alter
he had been examined upon his voir
dire and found to stand fair, to plead
his privilege OF exemption in being over
60 years OF age Under chapter ll6 Of
the Code, which prescribes who shall be
liable to serve as jurors, tho Court has
no authority to compel person over co
years OF age when claiming privilege to
serve as juror. ~
Setting aside taleaman Is no ground
for setting aside q verdict, if one
equally unobjectionable is added. Tho
prisoner is entitled to twenty qualified
jurors from which the jury Of twelve
are to be selected.
Another ground is admitting the tcs-
timony OF Mrs. Baker as to what the de-
ceased said: Garrison shot,me. Close
the door"
This conversation occurred within a
minute or two after tho shooting, and
within few steps oiwhere the homicide
occurred. Tho evidence is within the
rule OF res gestm. at any rate it could
not elect the verdict and was unim-
portant, as there was no question as to
the TACT that Garrison shot DR.. Baird.
Another point urged is that the court
erred IN not allowing DR.. Garrison to
Introduce declarations rs to tho shoot
ing claimed to havo been made to Dun
levy and kreitor shortly after the
shooting, at the corner OF Market and
Eleventh streets, in order to contradict
me testimony OF Armstrong as to what
harrison said to him about tho shoot
Ing immediately alter tho homicide,
When he met Garrison at d point on
Eleventh street considerable distance
S?oSe where Dunlevy and Krciter met
MN, they not being present as sworn to
ny Armstrong, tho failure to identify
he conversations Us ono and tho Same
conversation. But, on the other hand,
'!ie evidence OF defendants witness
shows, or tends to chow; that Arm
strong was not present Mt the conyersa-
Non they SDunleYy and kroitcr) had
WIN Garrison, and therefore. nothing
sa!o at that conversation could be re-
E2rded rs evidence in contradiction of
what Armstrong had sworn to.
;, another exception is that George w,
hoolnson was permitted to'testify in 70
ITuIta! IN contradiction OF something
~. HARRISON was not permitted TO in
Ueauce when he was examined as u
witness in his own behalf in regard to
M anonymous letter which was intro
G1ced as part of conversation with
W. T. Beans had by DR.. Garrison. The
record shows that DR.. Garrison in his
cross examination volunteered state
. ments in regard to his belief and knowl-
edge OF that letter which clearly made
Roblnson's testimony as to the letter
proper rcbuttal
And lastly, let US consider tho oues.
ton OF the bias and prejudice OF the
jurors Evans, Schmidt and Robinson,
and expressions OF opinions mado by
First let us briefly summarize the law
bearing upon tho questions. The doc
Time is we'll settled in Virginia that as
70 any irregularity or misconduct OF 4
Juror before he ia sworn and impaneled.
Tue Presumption oflaw isithat the pris.
eher Is not injured, and tho burden OF
proof Is upon the party alleging such
nfecularity or misconduct, to prove BY
a.,preponderance Of evidence that inius-
Hce has been done him, and rs to any
Mstesllnrity or misconduct on the part
VI juror after the jury is sworn the
resumption is the prisoner has suffered
'@lcssice, and the state. must prove be-
y. . 4 #. .. aI. f Z. +. &. . b. .