| Show h LEE ON THE MAJORS CASE Deputy Attorney General a New Net TrIal TraI HI 1111 Ii tu dir JJr III C the Viral hits JIliN in III time Ihl In Ute Use ap application made to the Stats Stat Supreme up Court on ot of Abe Ma Jon convicted of murder W A Let Lee deputy attorney general It to 1 Ir Ir Pitch yesterday Mr Lee III behalf ot of the Stat begat by stating taUn the grounds upon whIch i new trial can an be ordered ordred according accordini to the statutes and aDd said It 11 wOUld be a startling Innovation indeed upon the crimInal practice ot 0 this State It if it II shall be found that thu verdict In a criminal case can oan never be settled I is not a that has baa ever been rendered unless Ii It Itla la is fUll fully executed that cannot be at attacked tacked In the manner thu verdict has bH been and the result wilt III be If suds construction I a to 10 prevail that lung at Ir II a Juror has haa died left th the country or ot othis his hIe whereabouts become unknown the lbs solemn adjudication of oC courts court will b bat at the mercy ot of any 11 convict who cat can the affidavit o of II a party that b hm heard on ot of the jurors juror who the verdict express an opinion prior to it I the trial ot of the cause caulI We have nt no fear that such rule will er ares erbe be established In thIs state Th The alleged dIsqualIfIcation ot of Juror was known to 10 the appellant anti nd his hla counsel at the time ot of taking hll lii former In the oral argument and also allO In the brief now on nl file in III the th I former hearing o of Usia ca case this dis was wa urged upon the conS con ot of the court and nil uis nut nol considered because It hd had nut nol been In In the fanner motion for tor II IIII a II Stew II trial Therefore ait error clod upon the alleged misconduct ot ol this juror cannot avaIl all anythIng any anything thing upon thu hearing As Aa to the Juror harris tIter the I is no such luch a show how log as a would warrant warral this court In un Unsettling settling the criminal practice or of this State Slate and rendering t every ry verdict ot ol guilty open to this method or of attack In tile first place Ilare the of Fox lea 11 at most only tends tend to show how the ex cx ot of an hypothetical o opInion such lIuch II as men often express wisest when dill die rumor regardIng the commis lion sian ot of n a crime crimI that hat has startled the community TIters la is no showing or attempt to show that the juror knew anythIng about the fac facts other than Ihan he be mIght have han learned from rom rumor or r report or that hi his alleged opinion upon Ullon an any ot of the facts In the therace race ROIl It la Ia perfectly that the witness hart hall h he beets interrogated In regard to thu alleged conversation would have beers been able abl to 10 have hae qualified our statute a as a juror In III Ills counter hereto the wit wll witness ness Deu swears positIvely t t hp he received no Impressions as tile the defendants gulls or sr Innocence outside ot of the room hence his hi expression of An opinion Vat hypothetical anti bu upon report a amid rumor which would not have him The Th hereafter h cited upon question ot of diligence required to be shown by a party seeking a new trial on ms the ground ot of newly discovered cI would apply with equal fore to o the showing mall made In regard to 10 this tutor juror No lo auth diligence hu has been shown bown n na would a new trial ot f this case upon the ground Found men I slier aler a 1 period ot of more mort than a arear year rear the rendition o of the ver i and after a former appeal baa I been en I heard determIned MOTION FRIVOLOUS Passing to the Ilu last ground ot of app appel appellants ants lants motIon which l is based upon the bulJ h ut of the statute we e think the record shows It to be loul Th Tb motion mollon In III so far as It relates i to I U ground pretends to be based up upon on In newl newly discovered evidence but is IR sot not such uch newly discovered evidence eldene all aa appellants care within any ot if the authorities on this subject Some Home if the tIse rules In regard to newly nely wed evidence have become so well set Ht tied led that It Is II scarcely worth while authorities One la Is that the must t not bP be lye This flit is III the most mOlt that could w be said ot of vels assuming a that I he tofI furca s it 11 had not been destroyed 1 y 1 th the counter afterwards made nade Another rule that has haa become In practIce is II that the tue newly newl dla evidence must be ot of such a as a would snake make a different aull Probable In iii caM cabs a new triAl sac a Another nother Important I is a showing ot of diligence hIck I Is wholly holly wanting In this case CAI The rhe alleged wItness is II an tan as engaged In 1st the lie pursuit of Ute these part It lea was present am anti underwent an at the coroners coroner Ind nd was wall In attendance at the trial a aa as a subpoenaed on behalf of the Co 0 that no excuse can call be gIven why thy dl not lIot call him at the lit tC if hili hi testimony was AI wanted This Thill court has hos already held upon Ii former aPpeal that where the Itse el Pence shows howa that the defendant and an another tIter other lere rs all associated together to 10 rob and nd resist arr arrest even to the killing ot of persons anti In resistance one or of he attempting arrest wc Ih the killing by whosoever done ilone ss 88 tIe lIe act o of and both or of the con I And defendant la Is chargeable herewith whether he or hll companion 1 n the fatal a tal shot the authorities bearIng upon the o of when hn a new trIal will be ranted on th the grounds of newly die evidence are all collected In Vol ol U 11 Century Digest DIt pp to 10 hi Without going into detail I assert that not ot a single cast CalM can be found In which II new lIew trial been granted on the rounds ot of newly discovered evidence upon pots such a showing II as appellant here her makes maket new trial should hould not be ranted Iii a case calle for newly which is II not tIO so that tt it would probably produce 1 different remit lull Lee IMI then cited numerous es anti anel concluded oa as follows tollow I submit that appellant hu hi not n brought himself elt within any ot of the to toJ loua J soing ln requirements of the la law and that isis hili application should not be granted upon tl the record here relented presented |
