The Russellville Democrat. [volume] (Russellville, Ark.) 1875-1898, 1893-12-14
FIVE YEARS
THE SENTENCE PASSED UPON HORACE
G. ALLiS THIS AFTERNOON
BY JUDGE sANBoRN.
To be Cess ccss'ziss'sl.sd sl.sdd in the Kings County, New
York, Prison for That Term.
An Appeal VIII be Taken and Pendiug
the Passing Upon the Bin of
Exceptions Bail Is Fixed
at 100000.


/ The defendant and his attorneys, Messrs.
Martin and Murphy were present, and gave
notice Of motion for new trial, which
Judge Sanborn agreed to hear
this morning. Mr. Allis was
| in the meantime carried to the peniten-
tiary, whore no remained until this morn
| ing. He was visited by relatives an
members of his family there yesterday.
| When court convened this morning
Judge Williams, who had returned, was
| sitting with Judge Sanborn.
| After some preliminary arguments At
torney Martin made the following motion:
THE MoTIoT
The defendant, Horace g. Alis, moves
! the court TO set aside the verdict of the
| jury and grant him . new trial in this
case, because
First-The verdict is contrary to the
] law and the evidence.
| Second-The verdict is not supported by
| sufficient evidence.
| Third jury by which said verdict
| was rendered was not fair and impartial
| jury, one of the jurors, U. s. Bratton,
| who, on his examination as to his quali6-
| cations to serve as juror, answered and
testified that he knew nothing about the
case, and that he had neither formed or
expressed an opinion upon it
or about it, had formed and expressed such
| opinion, and had said that the defendant
was guilty and ought to be convicted and
sent to the penitentiary; and said juror
entertained said opinion at the time, and
| in pursuance thereof intended to do, and
did do, all he could to bring about the con-
| viction of defendant He had so expressed
himself to T.. A. Gray, G.. M. Chapman and
| others, shortly before the call of the
| cast, saying that said case would
| be the next case called, and that the de-
| fendant was guilty and ought to be con
victed. All of which was unknown to the
| defendant until since the rendition of the
verdict.
Fourth-One of the jurors, colored
man, jackson Sandridge, believed the de-
| fendant to be innocent, and so stated and
contended in the jury room, but the other
| jurors, except C.. r. Anderson, denied him
the right to express his opinion, telling
him that he was not a man, had no right
| to an opinion or to express himself, that he
could not preve by the Bible that he
was a man, refused him freedom of action
as juror, terrorized ard coerced him into
| agreeing that the false entry charged was
| made deluded him into belief that YER
dict expressing guilty on the fourteenth
count did not imply that The entry was
made with the intent to deceive or defraud
any one and that only fine would follow
| such verdict and coerced him into consent
ing to it, which he did under protest.
Fifth-That said jurors, except said An
| derson, further deceived and coerced said
Sandridge by insinuating that he was
| bribed or paid to oppose conviction, and
pursued like course to all the jurors who
at frst were opposed to conviction. That
| the said c. Il. Anderson and other of said
| jurors was also deceived into consenting TO
| said verdict bv those who favored convic-
tion, their representations that the verdict
| did not mean that the false entry
| charged in the fourteenth count
Of the indictmset VAS made or
procured by the defendant with intent to
decei or defraud any person.
| Sixth-That neither the said SaEd.idge
nor the said Anderson understood said
verdict or its consequences, but on the cen
| trary were led to believe and did believe,
| that no intent to deceive OF defraud was
| implied thereby, and no greater punish
ment than fine would follow the verdict.
| Seventh h-That said Sandridge and
Anderson consented to said verdict
l huuci ptobcsit WniCu butl cA-
pressed 20 all the others of said jurors,
and that the same was not free expression
of their opinion.
| Eighth The court erred in the course Of
the trial in permitting the witness Hays
| to testify on the part Of the prosecution ss
| to the balance of overdrafts of the defend
ant in the First National Bank of Little
Rock at different dates between the lst of
February, 1892, and the 10th of Decem
| ter, 1892.
| Ninth-The court erred in refusing TO
permit defendant to prove by government
| witness, Yost, that he and the government
! witness, Denny, had made false report Of
| the condition OF the bank of the 30th Of
| September, 1892, in which the bills and
notes re-discounted we're reported as
| 800, 900 less than they really were, and
the individual deposits subject to check at
| $l00,000 more than they really we're, when
the defendant was absent and with which
report he had nothing to do.
Tenth--The court erred in permitting
the writing purporting to be translation
| of telegram from the defendant dated
| February %, 1892, testified to by govern.
ment witness, Denny, to be introduced as
| evidence.
Eleventh The court erred in its charge
to the jury particularly in recalling
them after they had retired and
calling their attention specifically
to the fourteenth and fifteenth and eighth
and ninth counts, and to part of the tes-
timony bearing thereon, commenting on
the same and omitting other parts Of the
testimony upon the same counts.
The motion was argued pro and con by
Messrs. Martin & Murphy, House and Har-
rod. The court was evidently anxious TO
fin out what there was
in the charge that Juror Bratton
had expressed an opinion before being ae-
cepted to try the case and accordingly
issued subpaaa for Bratton, T. l.. Gray,
Geo. M. Chairman and Thos. Lester Pend
ing their appearance in court recess was
taken till 2 pm.
When court reconvened T. A. Gray and
Geo. M, Chaplain were sworn Their testi.
mony as to Bratton's alleged statements
was not sufficient 10 sustain
the motion for new trial. The court de
MED the motion for new trial, and after a
ten minutes recess the prisoner was called
TO the bar.
Have you anything to say why sentence
shsnid not be passed upon youf' asked
the court
II have 10 saw said
the defendant, ''that the
jury did not understand the evidence and
that the telegram mentioaed In the four
teenth count was incorrectly transcribed,
accept your sentence and will appeal
to higher tribunal for vindication."
Judge Sanbern then sentenced the pris-
oner to imprisonment in Kings county
New York, prieon for term Of five years
The attorneys for the defense saved Ak
ception and, pending the presentation oi
the bill for an appeal, bail was fixed Al
500, 600.