The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-08-08
MAJORS LAST CHANCE
Motion For New Trial AroD.,
at Brigham.
NEW EVIDENCE CLAIMED
CHARGED THAT TWO JURoD,
WERE DISQUALIFIED
Especial TO The Herald,

Bflghams City, Aug. The frs,
fort to save the life of Abe Majors
der sentence to be shot for the l:r,.
OF Captain Brown of Ogden. VAS ,,.-
here today before Judge Hart II
torneys for the condemned ma, 90,
a strong plea for their client and ---
motion for a new trial on The -
of the alleged discovery Of nov l.,
dence tending to show that The eg--,
shot which ended the life of @
Brown was fired by the-brorher ~ n
prisoner, Archie Majors. and ro- &c
the DEFENDANT Another reason is -
torth IN the motion, shown by SIX aai
davits, that Jurors FOsgren and T+s-r5-
were disqualified for The reasc1 In n
both mad claimed prior to the trial -
the case that Abe Majors ougbt -,
hanged. 10
The brief prepared by ATTORNEY
Thomas Fitch of Salt Lake was nr6'
sented by Attorney Call and suhnf--s4
TO the court for his consideration
In his statement Of the case Mr. Fit.L
declared that the application for nav,
trial was based upon subdivisions ?
and I Of section 1852 Of chaprer IN
Revised Statutes of Utah. and r,aFs
upon the entire record in the case ami
upon motion and affidaVitS filed Aur
4, 1900, and offered herein this 9Th ds~
of August, 1900"
Mr.. Fitch pointed out that no mo.
ton for a new trial has ever beer. rra5s
in this action before any court on tbz
grounds assigned. The affidavits fIa7
in support of this motion show thar rbs
discovery of the facts upon which de-
PENDANT relies in support of his molten
was not made until less than Lventv
days ago.
Under the provisions of chapter a
the defendant has a right to make this
motion upon the grounds assigned. not
Wtthstanding a motion for new trial
upon other grounds has been made ana
denied, and on appeal the judgment
and the order denying such previous
motion has been affirmed. The right
to move for a new trial, under subdi-
visions 3, and IS not limited by the
statute TO any time, except that such
motion must be made within thirty
| days of discovery of the facts relied up
on in support of the motion. Under
, section 1852 this court has jurisdiction.
and it is its duty to hear and determine
this motion.
The affidavits of James Boden, Reese
| Richards, ElYireZ Thompson and John
| Boothe show that William Fossren,
one of the jurors in the case. prior 10
| being called as a jurCr-in two different
! places in Brigham City, once on the
| day that defendant was arrested and
! brought in by the officers, and again
after an interval of several days
! spoke of defendant as follows: I
/ hope they will kill him before they
/ bring him up, so as TO have no bother
, 70 dot dgr bod
ought to be lynched-'
"At another time and place FOsgren
said, He, the defendant, ought To
! suffer death; if 1 We're on the jury
would have him convicted He de-
! serves to die He FOsgren, further
/ said that he had known Captain
! Brown, the deceased, for some time
! that he was a friend Of his, he having
/ worked for him: that Abe Majors ought
/ TO be hanged. and he would only be
| getting what was due him, and then
/ the debt would not be paid"
! On examination on his voir dire, Eos
gren said that ne had no unqualified
/ opinion as to the defendants Innocence
or guilt and that he could give him a
fair trial. Do these unCOntradlcte1
/ facts entitIe the defendant 10 q new
/ triaI2''
/ Following the above, Mr.. Fitch quot
| ed various authorities where cases sim
/ liar to this one were disposed OF and
+ concluded his brief by stating that the
/ principle invoked by defendant IS not
| only sustained by the weight Of author
/ ity, but in the state of Utah Is stare de-
1 cisis. and it being shown here by the
/ affidavitS of six disinterested witness
/ that two of the persons who helped "a
/ bring in d verdict of guilty had pre-
/ judged the case. and that defendant
upon discovering the evidence Of such
prejudgment has, within the thirty go
days allotted by the statute, brought
/ such evidence before this court in sup
port of a motion for a new trial the
granting of such new trial is a duty
which the court cannot avoid.