The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-09-29
ARTERGETS1OYEARS
csrere Sentence for the Killing
of the Chinaman.
eoRaEsT DENIES PREJUDICE.
M. and Burwell's AfIidavits Answer
plea for New Trial - McCor-
mick In Jail for Contempt.

toseph Carter was yesterday afternoon
.s-,s..ced 10 ten years at hard labor in
=. uenitentlary for killing Charlie Ling.
.-tfuezs cook On the stes mer Idaho last
-. The sentence fell upon the de-
ssrdaut and many in the court room Ike
ss,.nderb0lt, for the judge rad just re-
~s-kss that, while he was usually very
.sxere In homicide eases, the one under
federation involved a condition OF az
sslrs that warranted him IL being lcnient
80 therefore q sentence of three years
xss the most that was expected.
Ths case vas begun in the morning IN
~ library, and for a considerable time
- fsdge was considering the affidavlts
- the defense IN support Of the motion
"a uew trial, and the counter afndavits
.vesentea By Prosecuting Attorney Haste
sa8 Assistant Counsel J. T. Ronald. The
srtselDal document IN refutation OF the
slegations OF the defense was the state
,rsat Of Juror ". X. Forrest.
IN his AFFIDAVIT Ar. Forrest said that in
~ examination as TO his qualifications
- Juror he stated that he had 10 bias
- nrefgdice but that he had rather
s,rang opinion Of the guilt or innocence OF
80 defendant when asked II be could
~ tie case entirely on Law and evidence
- eafd he replied: II rather thtnk I
sauld" Continuing, he said: II sat IN
re Jury box next 10 A. Z. Burwell. who
.ss examined first. I second. Mr.. Bur
xeu had answered that he had formed an
oainlon and had been passed. After sew
sra Jurors had been examined the coun-
al appeared 10 become more particular
m questioning jurors as TO opinions and
,rsiadices and challenged a number of
Jurors for cause Inc aihaaFN S'At4h-
ued:
s.BurweI whispered 10 me, saying in sub
stance. I hope tina; ! will not have 20
az IN this case: / have some important
business that I will have to attend to-
In reply / said: I have friend from
Portland. who Is waiting for me down
town and is going away on the noon
train. / shall be very sorry II am not
challenged. so that / can see him.
"Affer another juryman or two had been
examined and challenged. Mr.. Burweil.
again whispering. said:
~ hope they Will let US off. We both
answered that we had formed opinions
Il said: They seem to be growing moro
technical BY the word they meant all
the attorneys IN the case, and that they
would be a set Of chumps IL they left us
IN meaning BY that. Il they were excus-
iag Jurors because they had formed some
kind Of an opinion and wished to get rid or
such jurors, II was strange they did not
excuse US meaning by the term they as
before. an OF the attorneys in the case.
"Nr. Burwen smiled and said: Which
tIse9 and replied both sides. They viii
have "a guess which side The CONVERSE
ion vas carried on in a spirit OF faceti-
ousness more than anything else. Mr..
Burwen did not know then nor could he
gather from the conversation. nor had
stated 70 any person at that time what
opinion / had formed in regard 10 the
ease While II Is true, as / answered upon
examination that ] had formed an
opinion, that opinion WAS without preju-
dice or bias against the defendant and was
merely an opinion formed from reading
newspaper accounts. as well as the testi-
many given at the coroner's inquest and
preliminary examination, as reported In
the newspapers
1T IS true. as | answered then. that the
testimony OF disinterested. credible wit
hssses could change that opinion. and
believe that ! was fully qualified 20 try
tae case as n Juror and 10 render n just
ard impartial verdict. I am now con
slous that l tried the defendant fairly
ana solely upon the evidence given and
sss In no degree whatever influenced by
sny prejudice or swayed by any impress
son or opinion that had formed
I was in no degree whatever Influenced
~ any prejudice or swayed by any inn
preston or opinion. gave the defendant
tie benefit OF every reasonable doubt
Basis of the Claim Of Prejudice.
Thursday morning after the trial I had
oonversation with W. r. Gay, and he
saia in substance: 4 do not sec how
y0a folks arrived at the verdict you did.
There Is nothing in the evidence 70 war
rant conviction This irritated me lit
tie and after little further conversation
! said 20 him: You ought 10 drill your
witnesses better, Gay. and not have them
tell quite SO straight story. and after
further conversation said: 4 was sur
rrised when YOU left men on the Jury. II
you did not want me. after / had an
swered that had read the account or
the hearing before the ooroner's Jury and
committing magistrate and had formed
ar opinion
II did not cay. as daposed hy Gay:
had such an opinion against the defend
art that Il would take more than two
credible witnesses. especially such Wit
resses as Young and Carter, 10 remove
The same ! did say: 7 had answered
ny opinion could be removed by the tes-
,lmony Of credihls and disinterested wit
ressss''
A corrohoratlve affidavit from \. P. Bur
vel was submitted. az the close or which
re defense desired to put I'm oral testi-
'aony 70 support its affidavits. Judge
Grnves upheld an objection from the state
- this point. and before a3iournSnG until
tAe afternoon said that ell he desired -
hear discussed by The state was The INSULT
eency OF evidence.
The Final Argument.
II. T Cav. the Defendants attorney.
made The opening argument in support 81
ne motion for a new trial Tie stated That
tae motion was based upon three grounds.
tFEt. misconduct Of the fury, errors OF law
occurring on thu trial and excepted 70 by
re defendant and third. the irsufdCiency
e me evidence 70 sustain tho verdict. He
ryefacea his remarks by stating that he
telt that the fact that the deceased was
Chinaman had unon the trial initiated
sgsinst TIE defendant Each lurywan hFd
sworn that he had no prejudice against tho
thi7ese race, when nature had implanted
e the breast ~ an humans 4 race pre- ~
Gee perVadirg al countries alike. The
Jurors. o. course, who thus testified were
sonest ir their intentions. bat the more
act that thew 90 testified naturally biased
Ven - atter-rt 20 Law aside their natural
P7sfatioe. AMI IN this attempt e was
fsyeeoloEiral law thsf they would become
eeeonsciously biased iu favor O. the China
nan n their etfcrt 20 ia him Justice The
a''ornfv no'1:a3 out that TIRE verdict had
0eea reae-ed hN tNe turv clearly bv dis
s1Faing tHe testimony 81 the only two eve
.4'hesSaS. Carter ana You0E and there
-ate th~ ttrv hsf returned verdict VII 'lly
suspicious ana clrruuistsutial evidence
Aeh he commended Was NOT sufficient 20
"Srfaat conviction.
~ haStta ara Mr. Ronald both spoke
GERS. ie-ahie length. IN substance thev
s'ea1sd tAat Carter entered the galley
'a4l Che fgnt took place there instead
outside. as claimed ~ the defense. Both
1oFaeFs bore Down strongly on the tna-
,,issnt ~ Nourg's testimony. Mr.. Gay
Nhaed briefly