The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-01-25
s.rorise Sprung Ia the Gallshcr
Murder Case.
'lpAvlr OF ONE OF THE JURORS
,oes Undue Influence Used In Sc
curing His Assent.
sEw TRIAL IS ASKED FOR.
General Impression In that II
Kan Be Granted--Tcxt of Juror
Powers Affidavit.

iveston, Texas, January PA bi
sse was sprung in the Gallaher mui
csse this afternoon, when the attor
for the defense filed a motion for
trial. The usunl grounds are set fort
rehearing, in which nothing startlin,
ver, is alleged.
addition to other reasons, an affidavs
M. Powers. one Of the jurors, is al
ID, In which he states under oath ths
vas in effect coerced into signing tn
,ct that was returned. Argument 0
notion will be had before Judge Cavi
brow at 10 o'clock. 1t is the gener,
ession tonight in legal circles that
trial will be granted.
motion and affidavit in full are q
NJ;
Now comes the defendant, Virgil GAL
her. in the above entitled and num-
red cause, and moves the court to
aside the verdict and judgment
rein rendered against him on the ed
January, and grant him new trial
the following causes, to-wit:
Because the court committed a
terial error, calculated to injure the
hits OF the defendant, in this, to-
n.. Ill - Ho
Is application for change of venue,
ich said application was supported
the affidavits and oral testimony
nine compurgators and certain eX-
pits OF newspapers and photographs.
)rked. respectively, exhibits A and
all Of which said grounds are dis
sed in the records OF said cause.
BY refusing to grant said defend
IS application for continuance, which
application with its supporting
Idayits are referred to in the records
this cause.
BY compelling said defendant to
his peremptory challenges upon
ors who should have been set aside
cause by said court, and especially
cling upon said defendant the Juror
8. Rogers, who was Objectionable to
defendant and was challenged for
pc by him, but said challenge was
rruled by said court, who forced
Objectionable Juror upon said de-
|dant after said defendants perem-
challenges were exhausted. Said
or. j. S. Rogers, was challenged by
defendant on the ground that he
at the time of entering the Jury
q liked and settled opinion that
endant was guilty and the justice
truth OF said challenge is clearly
ven by the hereunto attached af-
w. marked exhibit A, of Juror
n. Powers.
BY refusing, over defendants OBJ
lon, to let the question of admissi-i
Y OF the so-called confession Of
oY the State so to the jury for
determination OF any other fact
said case.
by allowing the State to put In
fence the so-called confession which
y Jones and Deputy Chief Amund-
testlned was made to them by this
enuant, also by permitting the State
the defendants objections to Of
IN evidence the other confessions
ca the reporters Geehan and Chubb
ae were made to them by the said
enuant several hours after lie had
removed to Jail, where said wit
es Jailed to show that the defend
mad been warned by either of them
any statements by him at that
anu place would be used against
on the trial of his cause.
inat because after the jury return
deliberate on the case received
testimony, to-wit: Juror j. 5.
~ stated to Juror ]. M. Powers that
~ currently reported on the streets
1aWeston that the defendant, Vir-
laiiaher. had committed rape upon
motner and then murdered her 10
w the crime OF rape, and that
Marhelu had examined the remains
- deceased and reported that the
81 81 rape was true; Rogers stated
aia POWERS that he believed II
rue and Rogers used said testi-
as argument to persuade said
ie 10 assess the verdict at the
penalty; that said Rogers made
oftsaid statements to Powers dur
.ne deliberations of the jury and
Iohe OF said runiors were known to
Juror Powers until stated to him
~ rogers, all of said facts which
10y tully set out and referred to
attached sworn affidavit of Juror
~. winch is marked exhibit A and
ned TO and made a part of this
Because owing to the misconduct
ne Jury which rendered the sail
me neendant has not received
ana imnartial trial. eaid miscon-
pelne as follows. to-wit: Juror
risher stated to Juror ]. NJ.
~ mat he (Eishcr) would not
.aee the people OF Galveston. and
"s would not dare, nor would the
Jurors dare, walk the streets OF
s''oh for fear OF mob violence,
y any other verdict be given than
"a tne death penalty: that the
~. =. Rogers and l.. G. Fisher.
10 Juror Powers that after the
having agreed upon the fact that
ant was guilty and the degree
s'uer, that the Judge would not
the Jury TO disagree upon the
Said Jurors Rogers and
also represented to the jurors
.wers and other Jurors desired
uauon OF the written charges OF
'ase said Rogers and Fisher stated
,ne Judge had given writ
,nn as and that they could
oother the Judge. but that
.hogers and FisherD could
suuih explain anything ON
mey' tho other Jurors. desired
s4'lon: and that they fRogers and
ssplalned tho charge on "cx-
~. nlslice aforethought' ms meaning
~ me Jury found that the de-
:, burned the honsa with the pre-
.,eu , design that It showed the
,asnnerate design In committing
s,ner' and said Jurors Rogers
amer argued with ]. NJ. Powers
" ipoHersl need not hesitate
rtsessine The daa.h nannItu =.