Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-11-16

(CouLnueQ from f1rSC EaSe.)
the evening. The jurors asked for
further instructions about pm, and
Justice Siddons returned to the court
house for the purpose and then sent
them back to confer further. No in
formation was given the justice that
the jurors had not been fed, and his
attention was not called to the fact
that there Is no longer dormitory space
In the court house for the accommo-
night. So he knew nothing Of their
plight.
Compelled TO Go Hungry.
Deputy Marshals Mccarthy and Dem
ham, In charge of the jury, sought
vainly TO get the jurors to agree to 60
to dinner, but were met with state.
ments that an agreement was inni-
nent and at least one. juror refused 70
have to pay their own way. The
others were compelled TO go without
food, a. the marshal could not separate
them. Objection was also made by
some Of the panel when advised that
they would be expected to pay for hotel
accommodations, since the marsf1als
ONCE has no longer space TO house
them and his appropriation for main
tenance Of juries applied only to GRIM
lnaI cases.
Foreman wilkins, when the hour was
approaching midnight, took money from
his pocket and gave It TO Deputy Nc
Carthy to obtain q quantity Of sand
witches from nearby lunch room, the
proprietor Of which added quantity
Of coffee when the situation was ex-
planned to him.
Text Of AHidavit.
The afidavit signed by wilkins reads:
THAT was foreman Of the jury in
the case Of Paul 6eale vg. United
States Veterans !, Bureau; that after
several ballots it was evident the Jury
could not agree; that the members Of
the jury had no supper for the reason
that one juror favorable TO the plain
till refused to so to supper until YER
dict was reached; that the time between
ballots was quite disorderly, some Of
the jurymen indulging in vile and
albusive language toward those holding
out for the defendant; that jurors
cursed and swore at jurymen favorable
TO- the defendant because they would
not agree with them upon q verdict;
that such expressions - Yes, you
snip, Just because you are q college
| man you think you know more than
| 10 men and because you are bust.
ness man you think your judgment
can be right and 10 wrong were
| directed against Jurors favorable to the
defendant: that such actions at times
almost precipitated q fight; that one
| time q Juror favorable to the defendant
was called liar by juryman favorable
TO the plaintiff and the latter assumed
a belligerent attitude toward the jurors
| favorable TO the defendant; that about
IL o'clock the affiant requested the
| deputy to have sent In some coffee and
sandwiches, for which the afnant paid
with his personal funds; that the jury
| had no place to sleep; that finally about
6 am. O'Clock the jurors favorable to
the defendant weakened by lack OF
food and loss Of sleep, rather than re-
main until 10 o'clock. when the court
would convene, decided TO give In, which
they did, and that the verdict was
based purely on sentiment and not in
| accordance with the law and the facts
| In the case, and he further states that
| the foregoing occurrences detailed by
him influenced him to the extent Of
| agreeing to the verdict, and that the
| verdict was not based wholly upon
the law and the evidence in the cas-"
Similar statements are contained In
the afidavit Of the other Juror.
| In asking for q new trial snd the
setting aside of the verdict against 1t
the United States Veterans Bureau,
through United States Attorney Leo A.
Rover, Assistant United States Attorney
| John w. Fihelly and Attorney Annabel
| Hinderiiter- claim that the verdict Is
contrary to the evidence and was OBJ
/ tanned through misconduct Of the jurors
or some Of them.