The Canon City record with which is consolidated the Canon City cannon., 1915-03-25
MOTION FOR
new TRIAL
IN CHANDLER
MURDER CASE
Uolun1inous Document Filed
BY Gen. Moupin In Office
of the District Cier X
Last Saturday

A motion for new trial, or rather
two of them, in the Chandler murder
case was filed by General Joseph II.
Kaupin with the clerk of the district
court last Saturday afternoon The
motions, one Of which is on behalf of
David Robb and the other on behalf
of Ben Richardson, are voluminous
documents; aggregating thirty-four
closely typewriter pages. and set
forth in detail the grounds upon which
= re-hearing is asked.
Eighty-one Objections Filed.
Altogether eighty-one objections
ore set up in the motion to the trial
rnder which Robb and Richardson
we're convicted in the district court
here last December and re-hearing
Of the case is sought because of the
alleged prejudice of the court and jury
against the defendants az that time.
A synopsis of the objections related
in the affidavits of the attorneys for
the defendants. three of the jurymen
and three citizens of Canon City, fol-
low:
First. Affidavit is made by George
Rouse, of South Canon that w. w.
Hughart of Canon City. one Of the
jurors in the case, disqualified him
self from sitting on the jury by his
Hostility to the defendants during the
trial and during the deliberations that
preceded the finding of the verdict.
Mr.. Rouse deposes and says that Mr..
Hughart's attitude was at all times
Of prejudice towards all of the defen-
dants on trial.
Montgomerys Statement Cited
Second Objection is made to the
opening statement OF Deputy Attorney
General Norton Montgomery in his
oEening statement1or the prosecution
Thirty-four specifications are made
against Mr.. Montgomery in this con-
Iection; all of them. 1t is alleged, be-
ing detrimental to the rights and in
terests of the defendants and unwar-
ranted by the facts in the case.
Third Objection is made to the ad-
mission by the court Of improper cvi-
dence against the defendants. Twenty
two citations are made on this ac-
count.
Fourth. Objection is made to the
refusal of the court to permit counsel
for the defendants to cross examine
witnesses Eight specifications are
made under this head
Fifth. Objection is made to the
ruling of the court permitting the
reading to the jury by the prosecution
Of the redirect evidence. OF the wit
ness, Albert Seip.
admission to the jury Of certain al
legged improper and prejudicial testi-
mony given by the witness Mozart
Lewis. Objection is made to the re-
fusal of the coutr to permit defend
lnts counsel to cross examine Mozo
Itwis ON certain matters referred TO
IL his testimony. Ten specifications
the dereliction of the court in this
respect are given.
Objections seventy-three and seven
tv four relate to the alleged improper
conduct OF District Attorney Gilbert
a. Walker in referring to David Robb
as parasite" and to Ben Richard
son as "bull dog"
Objection seventy-fve pertains to
the refusal OF the court to allow
counsel for the defendants to make
proper argument to the jury touching
tire matter In controversy.
Seyenty-seven. Objection is made
to the authorization by the court per
mittng the prosecution on the eve ol
tse trial to select portion OF the
defendants out of the total number
spd then s.rraign them for hearing.
seycnty-eighth: Objection to the re
fnsai Of the court to compel the prose
eution to furnish counsel for the de
5endants with bill of particulars.
Seventh-eiglith. Objection is made
that the verdict is contrary to the evi
dence in that erdict Of mansalugh
ter WAS reached.
Geventy-ninth. Objection is made "a
ne verdict on the ground that 1t ii
contrary to the law. It is contended
n should have been murder or an &c
euittai
niehtiath. Objection IL made that
~ vsrdict wss Improperly reached