Year: 1869




son, Ludlow, Peiroe, and Brewster-Before a
full bench this morning the COUNSEL for George
appeared to argue the motion made for q new
TRIAL Of his case: The prisoner sat in the dock
McCully. and appeared to be in rather low
spirits. In addition to the reasons already
filed in support of the motion, the following
were presented this morning.


IL. Because jury were not empanelled aud


IA. Because the Court would not permit the
prisoner to withdraw his perempLory chal-
lenge as against John Thornton.


10. Because the Court admitted statements
OF witnesses which were not evidence. and
subsequently sought TO cure the error. the
nregularity, by instructing the jury to dtsre-


l6 Because the Court admitted as evidence OF
ment of Mrs. Hill to Joseph Gilbert that the
defendant and his wife had robbed her.


=, IL. Because the Court admitted evidence Of
the condition OF prisoners balance in bank, to
woud be followed BY showing his inability to
pay his rent which latter fact the Common
wealth utterly failed to show.


Is. Because the Court refused to allow the
prisoner 10 show that on the Monday before
the murder he was cheerful, and not despond.
ent, to rebut the presumption that he was


10. Because the Court refused to allow the
prisoner to ask the witness Lane what ne did
say, after having permitted the Com mmonwealth
20 ask him what he did not say.


20 Because the Court refused to permit the
prisoner to prove by Dr.. Gross that he had
formed an opinion based upon experiments
recently made that the poker could not have
inflicted the wounds, although asked by the
prisoner to state in his answer the thickness of
the skulls experimanted upon, relatively to the
average thickness OF the human skull.


81 Because the Court refused to permit the
prisoner to show the result of said expert
ments. 49, .
OF william j. Post, to show that at or about
the time spoken of by the defendants witness
(AltgeL and Immediately before. nothing unu.
sual occurred about the premises situated a.
the mort beast corner OF Tenth and Pine Streets"
which testimony was admitted by a divided
1 nrt nd uyh M
light upon the testimony of Altget, but was cal
cuIated to misead the jury.


%. After. discovered testimony.


Mr.. O'Byrne commenced the argument in
behalf OF the prisoner, saying that IL could not
Importance, in which the feeling Of the CON.
munity was, with the aid OF the press. worked
up to high pitch and OF the twelve , & Jurors who
alone. nine Of them entered the box with pre-.
conceived opinions of his: guilt or
facts, it was highly proper lat the Court should
have laid It's strong arm upon the Common.
wealths officer ana restrained MIN from warn
ing the jury against disappointing public ex-
pectation, and from invoking public opinion
BE @ should % have M been ferSddea to say S's that
eight or nine hundred thousand parsons We're
15s agang the result O. tDis
OF public justice In: it. heavy Responsible
would rest upon some one. When the D:;.rct
tice, everybody must have known exactly what
he meant. And little incident, which, ofcourse,





was sufficient to satisfy the Court that the
most improper influences were brought 10 bear
case; and this incident was the disgraceful out
burst of applause from the audience that
speech. This OF itself should induce the COURT,
through mercy to the prisoner and a desire to
secure TO every one fall and impartial trial,
to set aside the verdict in this case


'There Is no question raised here on either
side 10 warrant me in troubling you with ded-
nitions OF the various grades of homicide"
This was a paragraph in the charge OF the Court
which should be dismissed and should work
took 1t for granted that the prisoners counsel
had agreed that If the killing of Mrs. Hui was
first degree, and said to the jury in terms that
they were not To consider the degree of crime,
but were only to say whether the prisoner
vas guilty or not guilty, for the rest had been
arranged by the Court. But the prisoners
counsel mad admitted nothing; they were no, in
a position to admit any thing, and therefore
it was error in the Court TO infer any admission
from them that might work TO the prisoners
was more com mpetent to FIX the degree than the
jury; 1t was his duty, TO instruct the jury as to
The nature of the different grades, and leave
them to apply the facts and say which had been
com united.


AS to the specification that in charging the
jury in regard TO experiments made to test the
transmisttbiity of sound through Mrs HIlPs
house the Judge failed TO touch upon that of
Officer Thorp In favor of the prisoner, no law
was cited, but the fact was of vital Importance
to the defense. and the Judges omission to give
! him the benefit of 1t was an error.


The Court erredin charging the jury that a
| drop" of blood had been found upon the
! blanket in defendants room, fer there was no
| such evidence In the case. Tnere was testimony
| in regard TO q "spot" OF blood, the difference
| between which and drop" in view OF the
peculiar issue in this case respecting coaRulated
and fluid blood, was of vital Importance.
| The Court erred In charging the jury in Ian
| gu8ge which necessarily left the inference that
| The defense wished TO account for the blood
upon the prisoners shirt and cuffs by the allie
CATION that he got IT by carrying in the body
| from the yard; Tor the theory OF the defense was
| greatly different from that, they contendlng
| that the blood got upon these articles from the
| other garments worn by the prisoner.
The assignment that the Court fixed the hour
| for the commission OF the murder was dwelt
upon long ana earnestly, as a most vital error.
Each specification was gone over by the
| speaker, whose argument had not, at the close
| of repOrt bAen concluded