Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-10-03
Desperate Battle Being Waged To Save Morensens Life

objected to the Introduction OF Mr.
Young's testimony for the reason that
the supreme court has ruled that the
defense Is not entitled to introduce oral
testimony in support of motion for
a new trial.
II don't believe the court desires to
hear any oral testimony on this mat
ter" said Judge Morse, "The court
gave the attorneys an opportunity to
introduce such evidence on the former
hearing on the motion for Il new trial
but no action was taken by them and
as the proper showing was not made
for the Introduction of the oral evil
dence, the court refused at that time
TO allow Mr., Young to testify. The
matter was taken to the supreme court
and passed upon and l don't believe
that you should be allowed to go into
1t again"
TO BE HEARD AGAIN.
Mr.. stewart asked permission to be
heard further on the matter before the
court passed upon 1t finally. His re-
quest was granted and he proceeded to
again read his affidavit which was filed
yesterday and laid much emphasis up
on the conduct of Mr.. Young in point
ing out to the jury different spots
closely connected with the crime, such
as the place where Hay was supposed
to have fallen, where his body was
thrown over the fence, and where the
Jars OF money were supposed to have
been placed on the wall OF the cellar
In Peter Mortensen's house.
JURY PREJUDICE.
WHO knows ~ continued Mr. Stewart
but that what Mr.. Young said weighed
heaVy upon the hearts Of those Jurors
and prejudiced them against the de-
PENDANT We have q right TO believe
that every word he uttered was
prejudiclal to this defendant
Mr.. Young refused to make
nm affidavit as TO the conduct
Of the Jurors when they visited the
scene Of the tragedy, because he said,
he believed defendant TO ne guilty. We
are satisfied that there are other con-
Versations which occurred AT that time
which We're prejudicial to the rights of
Peter Mortensen and when should be
made known by the examination of Mr..
Young on the witness stand I'm that con-
nectlon.'
CRITICIZED EICHNOR.
Mr. Stewart took occasion to criticize
the action Of Dist. Atty. Eichnor in
suggesting to the court, on the former
hearing on the motion for a new trial,
that the court could not compel MIR.
Young TO nuke affidavit and further I'm
telling Mr.. Young that he did not have
TO make such affidavit.
rs there any wonder" exclaimed the
attorney for the defense, that we did
not get am affidavit from Mr.. Young,
when the district attorney practically
defied this honorable court to compel
Mr. Young To make such affidavit and
stood by Mr.. Young AMI tolu him that
he did not have to make It, This is
what the defense has had to contend
with IN this matter the prejudlcial ac-
ton Of the district attorney, who Is the
sworn officer of the court and who
should protect the rights of defendant
Peter Mortensen as well as prosecute
the interests of the statel Whether Pc
Ter Mortensen is executed or not, | be-
lievo that the acts Of the Jurors Mt the
scenes OF the crime were prejudlcial to
his rights and J believe Il Is the duty
of every one OF them to came forward
and tell what occurred there and IL
| am wrong in my affidavit to expose
me-
Mr.. Stewart then read a number of
authorities which held that Il was
within the discretion OF the court to
compel jurors to make affidavit as to
their conduct when misconduct il
charged or when II is shown that there
is even reason to believe that there
was misconduct on their part. He also
cited authorities wherein certain mis-
conduct Of the Jurors was considered as
reversible error and grounds for new
trial THE court instructed Royal b.
Young, when he was sworn to take the
jury to the premises" said Mr., Stewart,
mot to allow anyone To talk TO the jur-
0rS or TO talk to them himself about
the case, but merely to show them over
the premises. Yet the records of this
case show that he did talk to them and
did answer their questions, and this Is
the kind Of evidence which convicted
Peter Mrotensen The court heard all
the evidence in this case and is better
able TO pass on this motion than the SUI
preme court and If this court grants
Peter Mortensen new trial, his decis-
ion VIII be the decision of every law
abiding citizen Of this state who believes
in justice In all things and believes in
giving a man, charged with a crime, a
far and impartial trial by an impair
tial jury, which has not been guilty OF
Such a right. the constl-
tuition of this state gives 10 him, but
in this instance we claim that he has
been denied a trial by fair and inn
partial jury, which has not been guilty
of misconduct"
Mr., Stewart had not concluded his ar
gument when the court took a recess
until o'clock this afternoon.