The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-01-27
his own tnnocencs BY mamma the guilt
pers
\ Y Dung M { Cue 4 Eyid ence ssSS,

III IL II StoS be Is bservedS that the court
was careful In inst r!1cting he ss1ury.sas
to ~ !, ey,GeeffSSs
Nj illness. liam McCue,s and 9 hers The
jury was warned tina his ssvt denceH WIS., ;atsN
admissible onl y to- con radlct tha.W1l lt
ess or, mot to be taken as ssr bstantiy6
proof az the facts rela ted by the itness.
or the terms 10 & To- tney
we're not ITO der the cyl ssufcns
purpose OF con trad ctlng It ;sB
During tile Losing It; ss sRe
In the presence Of Y he ~ ury said the
court: Yith@t he graz Gus co nsen the&
naks 9Rs S'sh 81
ntaaes nash
gme eui]; the distlng pushed GENT eman
As pc afs 81
case to prosecut ~
$s1 Counse for theapris ob5eeted to the
sstaaSatss
&It appea rs iii the btl Of Ions that
counsel for the prison Or had n his sargnssSs
Wood ii acting as
ESThe right Of II the pub ITO Y pros cutor ten
have asso ciated It'll him 81, TT rnsys toS
assist In the pros ecu ton Isl est llshedsS
ssub,ett OF iisss
fully there to assist he prose Ion. Al "a
counsel z tho def Tense Sto fends. tha42
proper bounds, he 5is not
before the jury. 1T would be Sa4 straI lga
4 thing II counso Il for Il the accused Wero$3
and thas lie latter should ID
submit In silence h der ne Pen atty eytS
arc to !mpose in. thls ere
sfi The jury wing rende cred a. vs. let g
guilty Of murder In he first degr the IL
sae siis moved To- sci as q tho
ielU hernii ted during tbs progrsss
strlaBto read, and a Ia read certain
papers COP ming refer cesI TO and com
ments upSn the ga sc, pc din g. The tria
$5 Ii Il S anpe ars that before the jury
sworn, and In respo $50 70 q req lest from
members OF the jury hat they mig III be-
permit ted 81 o read such 4portio Of the
aay 9swIRapssPs
.lnyl References ie Is this tria Which ths sud-
nembera The jury hen. !, at q, there say
obstruction OF the COURT. a I the time
h's ys p bsihs
net asked BY the court i they had Iob,eeT
In Hunter vs.. stat 4s Ga, AZ. a5t .,s
THE whole not 3impanele led, and IN the
of sh e, saTI
paper which contain led mn article re1eectlnss
Upon tho counsel for prisoner. 81 and no
saed thsreto n sadf
TIC jury asW9uld he suiileient 1, g..
az1as tfe xf IN lie sS suH and
When not not objected Will not be favor
ally ssKHsaes at Peope
FOR defendant banded Juror e ,1e sss,
paper to- read, sworn va pnl
before the Rhaaet
called to tha&fact tlstt anot her juror Wa u
reading ia whle q Wan an
t f!H ana conn,sn ting uIan the
favorably to the defendant and made no
objection thereto blt stat III,
about the matter as it might give the
article und,ia prominenee and % r ,h I,s si.,-
fendant more harm than Eood ia n nesap.
sibla for tho act. It was held that enc &.
irregularity was waived and could l,i NY y n
urged bS tine asfsnasns
s staa 81 gf ana suffer rresar
Ia take place and then seek " feYeIs We I'VE *
tha same. Like any other deienda tlE 4
he neglects in pr9per time 70 ins'sf pPon u
: In mckinney vs., Peopla. 2 4; Inns sS, tE a.
Is said prisoner on tinae 3, NJ
laws, has no rsl't % stand ok ena ~ NH
then ask to hive he rsys ~
on error Oh account of such
r. Sdciand Inn has placed him ION tho
same platform with all thars d,ifendaants. q
and he negleats IN proper tlnsa 4, t,s (,
sn. IL Is uniformly held IN ct vi as y e!t e
rs In criminal cases. for as NO nave a'-
- 49,
1cSntinued on taghth l'sSs-l sS'j ~