Evening star., 1926-10-10
DAUCHERTY JURORS
= REPORT DEADLOCK;
SENT BACK AGAIN
Judge Will Be at Their Call
From 1C O'Clock Today.
Wants Decision.
RELEASE WAS SOUGHT
BY MEN AFTER rs HOURS
Court Replies He Feels 1t His
Duty to Ask for Verdict
in Long Trial.
ey the Associated Press.

ey the Associated Press.
NEW YORK, October 9.-The jury
In the Daugherty- Miller conspiracy
case late tonight reported inability
to agree, but was ordered to return
to the jury room for further deliber
atoms At the time of their report
the case had been in their hands for
more than 25 hours.
In telling the jury that he could
not accept their disagreement as
final, Judge Mack said that the
jurors might retire for the night as
soon as they liked. He said he would
I've at their disposal to hear verdict
any time after 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning. Judge. counsel and defend
ants then returned to their homes
and hotels. from which they We're
called when the jury gave up hope Of
coming to any agreement.
A few minutes after returning to
the jury room the jurors We're march
ed to bus and driven to their hotel.
Jury Telephones Question.
At 1910 the jury had asked that
the clerk Of the court telephone
question to the Judge at his home.
This was done and the answer car
ried back to the jury room. The ma
ture of the question was not revealed.
When it was suggested that the
jury return verdict Sunday if they
succeeded in arriving at one. the queS-
ton of its legality was raised. Judge
Mack said that he was not positive,
but that he assumed it would be legal.
Federal Attorney Emory r. Buckner.
who prosecuted the case likewise said
he did not know, but his opinion was
that a Sunday verdict would be regu-
lar in the eyes of the law.
Judge Mack. in response to a re.
quest by one Of the jurors. explained
the meaning of the word conspiracy"
a applied legally.
1T two men," said Judge Mack.
have an understa nding with each
other as TO what to do or not to do.
that is the essence of conspiracy
nothing more or less than an agree.
ment or understanding. 1t need not
be written nor in words. but is must
he an understa nding.
Asked About Conspiracy.
Asked by Juror If conspiracy
must relate To the specific acts or
only general understanding.
Judge Mack said that a general un-
derstanding as to illegal acts might
constitute conspiracy.
On the request of another Juror. the
court ordered read the testimony re-
lating to the late Jesse Smiths al
legged close association with Daugh-
erty. The Government contends that
Smith was an influence in obtaining
release of the 5000. 900 for which the
late John T. King, once a power in
Republican politics. was paid S441 900.
The Government alleges that Daugh-
erty and Miller shared in this fund.
Their trial, on charges Of conspir-
ing 20 defraud the Government of
their fair and unprejudiced services
in the transfer to allesedlv German
owners of $1,000 600 of assets of the
Judge Wants Verdict.
sre-al Dispatch TO The Star.
NEW YORK. October 9.-Judge
Julian w. Mack asked to discharge
the Daugherty Miller jury here to-
night. told them: You must deliberate
much longer"
Il feel it my duty to beg YOU to de-
liherate further" Judge Mack told
the jury in a considerate tone. This
has been long proceeding. begin
ming on September I. until now. l
have no doubt that during the a
hours which have elapsed since my
charge you have given patient and
earnest consideration to everything you
have heard in this courtroom.
Il have taken full notice of your
statement that YOU are una BILE to
agree. l have had that statement
made to me many times by many,
many iuries. Such opinions from
juries. like judicial opinions. may be
in error.
Therefore. repeat. l think 1t is
my duty 10 say TO YOU, YOU must
deliberate much longer.
Il realize that each one Of you
must be convinced clearly and beyond
a reasonable doubt OF the guilt Of
each defendant before you can find
that defendant guilty. But you must
be humble. You must listen with
respect to the conflicting views of
your fellows. II is always desirable
in every case that the u men come
10 an agreement if each one can
conscientiouslv give his consent to
that agreement.
Then Judge Mack pointed out I,
the jury they might come to a deci-
sion regarding one of the defendants
even though they were compelled 10
disagree eventually regarding the
other.