The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-23


and do aver the fact to be that they did not
discuss or consider the testimony that had
been given in the case but arrived at this YER
dict without such discussion or consideration.
That on the next day, Saturday. November 2,
1899, met Horace Smyth, who was one OF
the jurors in said case. l met him on the cor
ner OF Pine and Montgomery streets In the
City and County of San Francisco, and had q
conversation with him regarding the trial, In
which conversation he informed me that he
did not believe Theodore meaning the de-
tendant, because, he said, that Theodore teStl-
fed that he heard the piano being played in
the church and that he fixed the vibrator and
did what he did to the lights and went through
the ceiling TO tho ladder and down to where
the piano was, where he found MI. King play
ing, in three minutes.
He further stated that he, although an
elderly man, was very active, and ne knew that
he could not have done this In any sucn time.
This is not the testimony as given by said de-
PENDANT at any time during his examination
or cross-examlnatlon.
that be would not believe any interested party
in case of this character. then SAID 10 MIN,
"Then YOU do not believe Mrs. DurrantS testi-
mony?" TO which he made no reply.
The conversation was opened by the SAID
Juror coming up to ME on the street, shaking
hands and expressing his sorrow for Mrs Dur.
rant and myself and saying that Theodore"
meaning the defendant, had convicted him
self by testifying to have accomplished all the
work as above mentioned and referred to in
three minutes and that was the testimony as
he understood it.
The third and last affidavit was made by
the defendant and was in relation to the
alleged conversation between Juror Smyth
and an Examiner reporter. In 1t he says:
That Horace Smyth who was Juror upon
the trial OF my case for the murder OF Blanche
Lamont, stated to reporter upon the Ex-
am1ner, whose name | am not now acquainted
with, shortly after my conviction, that the
most convincing proof of my guilt, to his
mind, was something that had been entirely
overlooked in the cross-examlnatlon by the
attorneys, and that he. would have. asked
questions regarding it if lie had not been so
shamefully treated by the newspapers; he
would have questioned me while l was on the
stand regarding the matter, and the matter
was that in the examination of burners and
the use OF the card in cleaning the tips and
turning the button, and walking the length of
the church and across the rafters, descending
the ladder, etc. as testified to by me, he, the
said Smyth, said I ties titled that did all this
while George King was playing the piano, and
that that was only for two or three minutes,
and that it was an impossibility for me to have
done anything of the kind within the time );
that 1t was an utter and physical impossibility
to do it.
And that he further stated to such reporter
that he had been out to the church himself and
examined into the matter to satisfy his own
mind. That he had intended to question me
closely regarding the matter, but that he would
be abused by the newspapers II he did so, and
that my testimony III this regard gave the
whole defense the lie: that he considered
lied in regard to this matter, and if lied once
l would lie all the way through, and that my
testimony as to the time spent in fixing the
sunburners, which was made an impossibility
by the testimony OF King, was enough for him,
and that If the jury had not been a unit for
conviction he would have submitted this mat
ter to it for consideration.
understand this conversation to refer to a
time su bsequent in all respects to the time
when the jury visited the church in charge OF
the Sheriff.
Assistant District Attorney Peixotto was
asked yesterday afternoon what he thought
of the points brought up i'll the atfidavits.
AS to the atfidavits in regard to Juror Smyth,
there is no danger Courts cannot go into the
reasons jurors have for finding verdict. The
rule OF law is simple and decided. Jurors can
not impeach their own verdict, and the courts
cannot go behind and impeach the methods
by which the verdict was arrived at, unless,
OF course, in eases OF corruption. And no
court can lay down what time any man should
take to determine any proposition. Courts
have been known to render decisions imme
diately at the conclusion OF the trial, and
iuries have been known to render verdicts
without leaving the box.
As TO the new evidence they claim TO have.
the law does not say newly discovered evil
dence, but newly discovered evidence which
could not have been found and produced at
the first trial. The evidence they claim is
really only cumulative and not such as would
give them q right to ask for new trial.