Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1905-10-26

account OF this statement. Under the
evidence" there hasn't been a dol
lar. paid to the Brady 90. it is tech.
nical charge that they did, said he,
concluding his address.
Prosecutor Fithian concluded the
summing up. in which he asked for a
| conviction.
Judge Jessup's charge was rather
brlef, but very clear. He said there
must be four essential elements estab.
iished before verdict may be found.
These are The defendant must be an
officer OF company or corporation; he
must publish the statement, i. g., issue
1t to the corporation or person wished
to be Influenced; he must know it to
be Ialse he must issue it with the
| intention to induce an advance or loan
OF money. These four essentials must
be established beyond reasonable doubt
| failing in one essential would inval-
idate the whole.
Judge Armstrong filed exceptions to
the charge.
The Jury retired.
The jury failing to reach an agree.
ment was discharged about noon to-
day.
The jury in the case of the State
| against John S. Turner, charged with
making false statement to obtain
loans from the Cumberland Trust
Company did not agree. The jury re-
mained deadlocked from Friday after.
noon at O'Clock until noon on Satur.
day. when Judge Jessup ordered the
County Clerk to discharge the panel.
The jury in all Of it's ballots with
the first two or three exceptions was
two for acquittal and ten for convio-
tion. Vote after vote was taken but
the same result was obtained. There
was never possibility of an agree.
ment. When the jury retired it is
understood that there were three votes
for acquittal, three blanks, and six for
conviction.
Directly following, the vote was said
to be nine for conviction and three for
acquittal. Then came the 10 to 2
vote and there the twelve men CON
tinued without any change.
The argument is said to have waxed
warm after several votes had been
taken. but it was impossible to change
the views Of the two. In the argu-
ment, it is alleged that some pretty
strong statements were made.
1t was held by those for acquittal
that there was no proof that the de-.
fendant Turner had profited by the
statement he made to the Trust Com
pany. Upon the contrary it was urged
that the amount OF Indebtedness of the
Brady Company to the Trust Company
had steadily decreased after the issu.
ing of the statement. Tt was agreed
by all OF the jurors. as the story goes,
that the statement was false, but it
was held by the two jurors voting for
acquittal that there was absolutely no
evidence tending to show that Turner
either intended or actually did benefit
by making the statement, or that there
was any further loss incurred by the
Trust Company.
On the other hand the rumor comes
from the jury room that some OF the
members of the jury expressed the
opinion that it would be proper to con.
vict Turner on general principles and
it was urged that he had greatly duped
the farmers in cheating them ont of
money for their crops.
| Saturday night one of the friends of
Mr.. Turner who has been closely asso.
ciating with him in his defense, ex.
pressed the opinion that it would be
impossible for Turner to obtain fair
trial in Cumberland county. The pre-.
| judice against him, it was urged, pre-.
cluded all possibility of fair play in
making up verdict. It is not beyond
the range of possibility that change
OF venue may be asked for Turner be-
fore there is another trial.