Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-05-28
4 VERDICT REACHED.
THE JURY IN THE GARRISON CASE GAME TO A
CONCLUSION AT NOON YESTERDAY.
They Found the Defendant Guilty Of Involuntary
Manslanghtsr-How They Stood Before the
Agreemsnt-Ths Penalty Which May be
Impossd-Motion for a New Trial.
It is the unexpected which always

It is the unexpected which always
happens.
At twenty minutes after twelve
o'clock yesterday afternoon the jury in
the case of the State V. George I. CARR
son returned verdict Of involuntary
manslaughter.
There were not over ten persons in
the Court room, outside of the Court
officials and counsel, when the jury
came in, and there was an entire
absence of anything like a dem
onstraton, which might have happened
II the usual large audience had been
present. So well-defned had the idea
become in the public mind that there
would be no agreement, that compare
lively few people visited the Court
House during the morning, and most of
those present left after the ma tier OF
the INQUIRY as TO Juror Jacob Kel-
Ter, in the Maier case, had been dis
posed of, and the announcement
made that the argument in the ProoaSco
case had been postponed.
When Court convened yesterday morn
ing, at half-past nine o'clock, the jury
in the Garrison case took the papers
from the hands of Clerk Mitchell, as
they had upon three previous days, and
again filed out TO their room. There
was nothing whatever to indicate an
agreement, and during the morning,
when Sheriff Steenrod had occasion TO
visit their room upon official business,
matters were apparently in the same
old position. Several of the jurors
were lying upon the floor, with their
folded coats beneath their heads, TAX
ing maps, aud the rest were engaged in
desultory conversation or standing or
sitting abou5 the room. There seems
60 have been no idea of final agree
ment until near the hour OF noon, and
then, when it was seen that they could
get together upon Involuntary man
slaughter. there was hurry to get
matters in shape in time to announce
their conclusion when they were called
in for the noon adjournment.
When the Jury came in, the few Deo-
pie present took but languid interest
in the scene, suppOsing, as matter OF
course, that there would be the same
old announcement of no verdict, and
that they would be adjourned until two
o'clock. Clerk Mitchell made the
formal enquiry. Gentlemen of the jury,
have you agreed upon verdict" and
was considerably aStoniShed when Fore
no no
prisoner was told to stand up, while the
few persons present at once developed
a considerable concern in the proceed
ings.
"What say you, gentlemen of the
jury, guilty or not guilty?" was the en-
quiry of the Clerk.
'Guilty," said Foreman Gibson.
DIR. Garrison flushed noticeably, but
otherwise there was no change in his de-
meanor. Clerk Mitchell took the paper
handed him by Foreman Gibson and
read
1--WE, the jury, find George I. Garri-
son guilty of involuntary manslaugh-
ter"
Dr. Garrison at once sat down, and
after the verdict had been placed in
proper shape, Col. Arnett asked that
the jury be polled. This was done,
each man answering that it was his YER
dict. The Court then thanked and dis
charged the jury, and the defense made
a formal motion for new trial, which
was set for argument to-day. The jury
and spectators then rapidly withdrew
from the Court room, and the defendant
was remanded to Jail, where, during the
course of the day, he was visited by a
number of friends, who rendered their
CONGRATULATIONS upon the com arativelv
small verdict returned.
After they had gotten their din
ner, the members OF the jury called at
the Sheriff'S Office, where they settled
with that official, and there were mutual
congratulations upon the cessation OF
their not very pleasant laborS. 1t was
4 matter for considerable comment that
the verdict was announced upon the
anniversary Of the verdict of murder
in the second degree, returned at the
end of the first trial.
The verdict was received by the pub
lie with general surprise that there
should have been any conclusion at all,
aud with varying degrees Of satisfaction
or dissatisfaction. This was to be ex-
pecIed in a case which has created so
much interest and excitement for fifteen
months, and concerning which so many
antagonistic and well-settled opinions
were entertained. Comment was fire.
Quent, one way or the other, but most
Of the talk was directed to Speculations
as 10 what the penalty imposed by the
Court would be. As was stated in the
REGISTER yesterday morning, some
members Of the legal profession hold to
the opinion that there is no penalty at
tached TO verdict Of involuntary man
slaughter, while there are not few
who are as strongly inclined to the view
| that there is not only power TO punish
] In the Court. but that there is no limit
I TO the punishment, both as to fine
or Imprisonment, which may be in
I flcted, the mprisonment,as matter of
course, being restricted TO Jail sen-
/ tence. There the reader has the Two
extremes of opinion, and can see at a
glance how wide apart the con-
illusions are. The Courts of this
Circuit have punished involuntary
mauSlaughter, recently, by moderate
sentences TO the county jail. In the
case of the colorcd pan kingrey who
| cut waiter, at the motel Windsor, a
couple Of years ago, q sentence OF six
months was imposed, and in the New
( Cumberland cutting scrape, Judge
/ Campbell imposed sort Of con-
dltonal sentence OF three months
on Hanley. In ParkerSburg, Judge
Nun Jackson once imposed a SEN
teuce of two years and half, as
was stated yesterday. a section
of the Code, limiting Imprisonment
/ in Jail 10 twelve months and FIVE hun