New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-20
COLONEL CHURCHS AFFIDAVIT.

COLONEL CHIRCllS AfflDAN II.
The following affidavit, issued yesterday by
Colonel W. c. Church who foreman of the
Grand Jury which failed to find an indictment on
the murder charge against Molineux. is of unusual
interest in view of the controversy over the case:
am Informed by Barlow s Weeks that have
been lawfully required. under the provisions OF
Section Isl OF the Penal Code. by the Justice OF
the Supreme Court before whom a motion Is now
pending for leave resubmit to the Grand Jury the
c!osure of certain matters which transpred before
the Grand Jury Of this county for the May term
an affidavit made herein by James w. Osborn AS.
sstant Dstrct-Attorney, verified June l5 1899 upon
which said motion was made. Complying with TINS
requirement this affidavit Is made.
for the May term 1899 had been previously fore
man Of three different Grand JuTies, tnd Am Ia
bodies VII" Tfe Examination by the May Grand Jury
in the Of the People. etc. against MolneoT
1t was conducted throughout in the presence OF the
Assistant aS Fs G %nS to ask all
questions ne desired The Assistant District At
tor Srney Grand ws u asNt the close Of the inquiry whether
he had any further testimony to oner, ana an
which the Assistant Distrlct-Attorney objected was
were ordered stricken out Immediately on such oO-
lection. cuo.s r,,r,. tho foreman an
handwriting not included among the witnesses
t a%msa By Of Mr. With The ha
he had been for many years employed Uy tg was
called only because OF the approval 6y tne court
this action on the part OF tne GG nf me vestga
tion a SYNOPSIS OF a portion OF the testimony taken
at the % b 9a Tand Jny s and NO portion Of
it read to ther as ,,ng aesons addressed
for the pggPoS n Oh Drrencc 6 the Assistant Dis
trict-Attorney and subject 70 MS eXainil' ~
eisani District Attorney Mr. Osborne and he In,
formed that the use was yas a S COPY Of it
| had been sent TO the Office of the Dls'ric'-A'-
| torney.
"TANsEY" LETTER NOT READ TO GRAND
The letter signed "ransey' was handed 70 me me
! one day az | was hurrylng to the meeting OF tne
| Grand Jury and was delivered by me on my ar,
r nn presented or read to the Grand jury and no
action Of any kind taken upon IT, the Ass,s,a d
ihst there was nothing in it, + 1t was found
among the papers coming from the Gra tep those
T nennts left the Grand Jury room IT never was
control OF the Grand Ja5yf from the attorneys
for Moneux recitng his commitment on the the raRS
Jury to the provisions of law requiring them 20 com M,
gure into the cases OF persons ng action was taken
on this was n efg bSs6 aec de Of As
me Tansqy letter had been given to the news
pa pers for publication after i had Passto rnev The
letter from the attorneys FOR Molneux was p'aceu
! in tho custody Of the Court o,,eoo,,, act forth
rotb tm WI WAS presented to the Grand Jury and no
witnesses were called before 1t. except oy the AS
s Tha examination Of the Handwriting exhibits by
,ba Grand Jury was made by each Grand Juror LOI
binself These exhibits included a latet nu. 1
~ snecimens OF handwriting by the accuseu uUti
uhin1h was selected a sufficient number 10 iurhlsI
Wiz hosIs TO- comparison with the writing on me
.a.oIaon nackage" and the Barnet and cornish iet-
tors This examination vas partaIy maor ,a.nnSS
! The examination OF witnesses Nv Nj; CSpi ~ o.
~ have escaped his attention. one or the en-
! n,eris went down the line or Grand Jurors i anp
nointed ont for each what he regardeu az SIM
iorities bctwecn the handwriting oil MoIlueuA ~ ~
/ handwriting
| members OF the Grand Jury mlcroscopec u tnu
ihrnu@b II they examined the writings In question
! under his direction
NOT CONVINCED ABOUT THE WRlIlNd'
The Assistant Disrict-Attorney was not present
! 90 70 handwriting which was by no means Limited
| 70 the ten minutes Of which he speaks ~ MS am
davit II the decision OF the Grand Jury was
! promptly reported after the testimony had Deen
taken IL was only because SO far as any opinion
Was EXPRESSED. TO convinced tnat the ad-
dress on the poison package and the WrlnR OF the
Iarnet and Cornish letters were the work OF MOI
! neuy The conclusions Of the Grand jury on TINS
subiect are found in It's refusal find indictment
| | have not. and never have had, any relau0hS
with the accused with any or his family or a
nature to bias me In the strict discharge OF my
duty under my oath Grand Juror mot 10 re-
frain from presenting any man through favor. rear
or an.ction." General Moneux. the father OF the
accused is simply ono or the numerous gentlemen
. associated with military matters with whom the
circumstances Of my life have made me scquai1ted
D. I had no communication during the sessions OF
the May Grand Jury with any one connected with
Ne accused as counsel relative or friend. and
lar as I know rs informed or believed. no attempt
: was made by any one TO influence the Grand jury
IN favor OF the accused. ~,
! nose Of generating Molineux. Each and every
/ question asked by me. at my suggestion. was