The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1914-07-29

Continued From First PAGE.
OF concerted action, inasmuch as Will,
there is evidence OF simultaneous ac-
ton by the several respondents. there
is not seintilla Of testimony Of con-
ccrted action.
N-That the verdict is not sustained
by the Information. inasmuch as at
least three of the respondents were
found guilty of conspiracy 10 commit
manslaughter, and no conspiracy is
charged in the Information.
That the information nowhere
charges a conspiracy to commit either
murder or any lesser crime.
1O-That a conviction should not be
sustained for crime not CHARGED in or
included in the allegations Of the infor-
nation.
Claim Jury Was Biased.
ll-That the jurors. by the recon-
mendation of leniency TO respondent
Polkinghorne showed themselves to be
biased and prejudiced as TO respond
ents Cooper, Croft and Davis, and
therefore disqualified to sit as to the
said respondents
l2-That the verdict is wholly UNI
supported by the evidence.
l3-That the verdict is contrary TO
the law.
14-That there is no such crime
known TO the law of Michigan as a
conspiracy to commit manslaughter.
l5-That a conspiracy to commit is
irreconcilable with and repugnant to
every accepted definition Of man
slaughter, consequently an instruction
that verdict Of guilty Of conspiracy TO
commit manslaughter, is erroneous.
l6-That there is no evidence, to sup
port the verdict, of a common pur-
pose 10 commit any felony after the
commencement Of the second transac- |
ton, namely: the assault by the occu-
pants Of the Putrich house upon
Cooper and his associates.
l7-That under the Instructions Of
the court, the jury must have found
some one Of the respondents guilty Of
manslaughter. and the other respond
ents guilty as Co-conspirators. ami
That m the verdict no one is named
as guilty Of manslsughter. and that is
the verdict no one is named as a co..
u the one who is return
Cd as the enc who must have been
found guilty, and the verdict is void
Tor uncertainty.
Claim Error in Verdict.
ls-That the jury cannot saw that
some one, We know not whom Is
guilty q manslaughter. and that his
associates. We know not whom. were
actua'ed By common purpose TO COM
.nit mansiaughter; manslaughter IS
not an attempt or purpose, but an
overt, accomplished fact CactD
ls-That the court did not instruct
Pre- jury that the simultaneous firing
Of the respondents was not I'm and OF
Itself any evidence Of concerted ac-
.gu.
-l-That the cour. did not instruct
Pie jury that simultaneous action not
directed toward a common point is not
consistent with independent action.
-l-That the court did not instruct
he jury that concerted and simultan-
.ous action not directed toward
.lmmon point is not Inconsistent with
IN independent action, and no evil
ience OF acts with common intent and
purpose.
Questions Courts instruction. I
THAT the jury was insufHcicntly 1
instructed as to the definition of vol
,ntary manslaugbter.
-a-That the jury was insuniciently i
instructed as to the meaning and legal
feet Of heat Of passion" and cool
ng time or lack of cooling time"
-4-That the jury should have been {
instructed that under the evidence in
he case and all Of the evidence i'm the
ase. 1t could not consider second de- ,
rec murder, and that all it could con- G
ider was manslaughter. +
THAT the court should have in n
uuc'ed the jury that while there may d
o. conspiracy 90 commit second de- Z
rec murder, there cannot be conspir- f
cy TO commit manslauehter. and as n
stated before, all of those reasons $
70 urged under the three motions Just :.
aclted. 81