The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-11-05
PRICE CENTS % III %asEsB sS ;9SSafs gssGs


concluded. Evidence before the coroner
rests upon different foundation. The cor
oner Is directed by law to reduce all testi-
mony TO writing and have witnesses sign
it. 1t viii be noted that the clerk of the
grand jury is required TO reduce only a
part of the evidence TO writing, while the
coroner Is required 10 reduce all. In no
sense is the rule governing dying declara-
tions applicable here. Declarations made
in extremis may be valid in parol, but
when a party has the strength and deem
ii of sufficient Importance TO put part of
his statement in writing the law presumes
he put ii all in writing. The principle of
this rule is different from that operating
withfa witness before the grand jury. There
the witness is not judge OF what shall
be put in the minute. The clerk may put
down only one of dozen important state
ments before the grand jury. Shall IL be
said that the other eleven shall be sealed
against judicial investigation?
AS TO JUROR sURBER-
1.-The conduct of 4. A Surber. a juror, is
urged as a reason for new trial. Afi-
davits have been filed that he made strong
statements concerning the defendant be-
fore he went into the jury box. After be-
ing sworn Mr.. Surber said he did rot know
the defendant. did not know his family
nor his wife's family; had read of the case,
but never talked with any witnesses. All
he heard. was hearsay. He had formed
and expressed some opinion.
Do you still have the opinion, he was
asked; He replied My opinion has never
been changed.
You still hold the opinion?'
Yes, SIR
If you are accepted as a juror that
opinion would stand in your mind until
evidence is introduced which would show
differents facts and lead you to change
your .vo opinion d,a
To that extent ii would influence YOU
one way or another?
Yes, sir, that far
Would it take more evidence to lead you
10 come 10 a verdict contrary TO that opin-
ion which you have now formed than il
would to lead you to come TO a verdict
in accordance with the opinion you now
holdT
..I know nothing of the evidence and 1
do not think IL would
'' But you have an opinion?'
Yes. sir, / have
Gould you start into the trial having
present In your mind as an affirmative fact
that the defendant is Guilty of crime
whatever and have that stand in your mind
until the evidence shows him guilty.
Yes, sir
You have no prejudices whatever
against the defendant
No. sir
''The defendant was entitled to full in
formation of the condition of the minds of
jurors and upon all other subjects inquired
of. If the condition of mind toward the
defendant was misrepresented or any fact
inquired or withheld then ii may not be
said i'm a case like this TO work no harm to
the defendant, but in this case there is no
pretense and can be none that the juror
misrepresented or withheld any fact in
uuired of unless 1t be the real state of
mind toward the defendant But who but
the juror knows the actual state of mind
No attempt has been made TO show that
nation was in any way different from
what he stated. II the juror is to be be-
lieved when put to the solemn test of an
oath il makes difference what idle and
frivolous statements he made In gossipy
conversation with his neiehbors. The test
was not what he said in discussing rumors,
but what frame of mind was he in to give
the defendant the benefit of the law and
the evidence. The statement 10 W. y.
Crahb is most complained of. Mr.. Surber
denies the conversation with Mr. Crabb.
CRABB AND SURBER.
Mr.. Crabb fixes the time four months
before he is called on to produce the words.
He is the father-in-law of Mr.. Parker coun-
sci for the defendant, lives in the same
house with him and eats at the same table.
He knew Mr.. Surber was on the jury with
in few days after the jury was accepted.
but did not tell Mr. Parker of his talk with
Mr.. Surber until inquired of after the ver-
dict. The men are both of high character
and responsibility, but the language at
tributed to Mr.. Surber is so intemperate,
If taken seriously, to be wholly incompata-
BILE with his well-established character for
conservatism. and inclnes me to believe
Mr.. Crabb as he stated the case was often
discussed in his bank. has confused the
conversation with Mr.. Surber with that Of
some one else.
1t is contended that the verdict is not
sustained by the evidence. ] do not know
of any useful purpose to be attained by
discussion of the evidence. The rule laid
down is that Ii must clearly appear TO the
trial court that substantial justice has been
DONE or the court should set aside the YER
dict, and in the Supreme Court il must
clearly appear that substantial justice has
not been done before that court can inter
fere. 1t is obvious that the rule cannot be
extended without infringing upon the right
of the trial by jury II it be true that upon
a motion for a new trial the judge must
weigh the evidence and determine the
facts as did the jury. and If he should
fail to reach the same conclusion upon
some material fact, he should grant new
trial, what Is gained by submitting the
to jury in the first instance? The
experience and wisdom of centuries have
confirmed trial by jury as the surest and
safest method of administering justice. So
well is the principal grounded that our
Legislature has provided that a man
charged with murder cannot submit his
trial to court without a jury, even after
agreement between the prosecutor and HIM
self jury of twelve can only try him.
1t is obvious that the judge cannot inter-
fere, because the moral force OF the evidence
does not AFFECT him as it does the jury.
The jury whose verdict is under question
has had few superiors In this county. Rare
ly indeed has more intelligent probity of
Ciidi dStci ocSii Dtiiutu HI d jury tndn Is
found in this. All are in middle life aro-
gressive men of affairs and all identified
with the interests of the county No word
of suspicion has been raised against any
one of them. They were not allowed to
separate. Their attention to the proceed
ings was common remark, and that the
verdict returned was their honest opinion,
pronounced after impartial and intelligent
consideration, there can be no doubt.
have not been convinced that prejudicial
error was committed, nor that the verdict
was not sustained by the evidence there
fore the motion for a new trial is overruled