The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-01-21
Mate Bram'S Counsel Ar
CUES for a New Trial.
Affidavits Made by the Jurors
We're Admitted.
Contention of the Defence Is that
Jury Was Irregular.

Sotttf ana Asa l.. fienCn cOEtinenCcd
yesterday the argument for new trial
md arrest of judgment In the case of
Thomas Mead Pram. convicted of the
murder OF CAPTAIN c. |. Nash Of the Her
bert Fuller. The government was rep
resented by District Attorney Sherman
Iioar and Assistant District Attorneys
j. III. Casey and +. T.. Cabot.
A number OF the jurors who had tried
the case were present. Among them were
the foreman Rinaldo A. Jack. oliver j.
Briggs. Warren w. Blake and A. c.
Ford.
Judges Colt and Webb having taken
their seats on the bench. ;hc case was
opened by District Attorney Hoar. who
made a motion affecting the conduct OF
the hearing. He stated that there were
two motlons-one for a new trial. with an
amendment. and second for an arrest
Of judgment. He wanted them not mere
~ heard separately, but wanted the
first motion divided.
Mr.. French objected. saying that he
thought the motion ought to be heard az
whole. He was supported In .,Shis by
the court
Mr.. French ther set out the grounds al
legged in the motion for new trial, as
follows:
First--Because the verdict is against
the evidence and the weight thereof.
Sccond-Because the Interruptions.
statements OF fact, and opinions. and
examinations of witnesses by one mem
ber of the court during the trial were
partial, argumentative and unduly
prejudlcial to the defendant in so much
that the defendant has been deprived OF
a fair trial and because incompetent and
prejudicial matter introduced by one
member OF the court. by questions and
statements, and characterlzations OF the
defendant and his testimony. and OF the
closing argument in his behalf. forced
the defendants counsel to protest in the
presence OF the jury and thereby placed
themselves in the attitude OF antagoniz-
ing the opinion OF the court. in respect
70 question OF guilt or innocence Of the
defendant, and because the withdrawal
OF such matter statements. opinions
and characterizations (whcre they were
withdrawn could not. and did not re-
move the unwarrantable influence and
prejudice thereby injected into the minds
OF the Jurors.
Third-Because the closing argument
OF the United States attorney was i'm
proper in tone, language and manner.
and because it's tendency was, and its
effect must have been. to unduly excite
the passions of the jury. and to arouse
in them feeling Of hatred and contempt
for and prejudice against the defendant,
es well as by reason of its said tone,
language and manner. as by unjustifia-
ble differences and deductions from the
testimony. and by innuendoes from as
sumptions of fact not In evidence; and.
further, because he argued on evidence
excluded by the court.
Fourth-Because IL appears that the
jury misapPrehended and misapplied
the instructions OF the court. given them
en- the morning of Saturday Jan. 2. 1897.
whom the jury came into court for fur
ther Instructions, insomuch as they be-
licved, or certain OF them believed, that
they were then instructed that they
rust of necessity agree that the minor
ity must OF necessity conform to the
opinion OF the majority. and that II
would not be lawful for them TO disagree
unless they unanimously concurred I'm
disagreeing
Fifth-Because IL appears that certain
OF the Jurors had prejudiced the defend
ant.
Siyth-Bccause OF the misconduct OF
certain OF the jurors throughthe trial
Scventh-Because OF the misconduct Of
certain of the Jurors after the case had
been given to the jury.
Eighth-Because certain person. or
persons, in the service of the United
States were permitted 10, and did. i'm
properly communicate and intermeddle
with certain OF the jurors during the
progress -efthe trial.
MIR. Ormsby OF counsel for the defense
then read the specifications in the testi-
mony as TO Judge Webb interposing and
questioning the witnesses.
AT this point there was long discus
sion between the lawyers and the court,
during which Judge webb stated that he
would personally take the responsibility
OF all he had said from the bench.
District Attorney Hoar said he had
caused subpoonas To issue for the wit
ncsses named by counsel for the defense,
and he believed most Of thcm were in
court then. so he did not think there
was any good ground FOR delay because
OF the necessity for the presence OF Wit
nesscs.
Mr.. French read a number OF authori-
ties bearing on cases which he contend
ed were similar 20 the one under discus
sion. and which. he argued, bore out his
contention.
District Attorney Poar replied. and
said If the defense were 10 he permitted
10 attempt TO upset the verdict on mere
afidavlts, where there would be no OPP
rortunity permitted to counsel for the
government TO cross-cxamine the wit
nesses. IL would bc traVesty on justice.
The court decided TO follow the ruling
OF the court IN the case cited by MIR.
French-Maddox VS.. the United States
Ia relation TO the form OF admitting the
emdavlts as evidence. The affidayits
would be admitted.
The court ruled that objections could
be made as aGidavlts were read.
Mr.. Ormsby then read the affidavit OF
James J. Conncil OF Cambridge. This
sald that Connoll knew Oliver J. Briggs