Show THE FINAL PLEA FOR ABE MAJORS Made by Attorneys Today Who Vito Ask That lie He Be e Given One More Chance For His Life n I I I I TO tc HE CIty All Ang with On D a motto for few a fleW trial In the case oue was made mati before Judie Judg Hut Hart late lain this afternoon It bel being after whoa the CUt cue w was reached and at s this Urns Ume the attorneys for tor the cot con demised man are pleading with tb court to rave give hUn on one more chance to for his W life The ground upon which the th motion tor id a new Dew trial is II asked aked is II lb alleged discovery ot of new evidence tend In lag to abo that the dead broth brothen II en or of the young prisoner r and not the tb latter fired Ired the shot bot that killed Cap Bro hut this Is Ie the oily reason Ob us t forth In III the motion for far a SeW trial Ti Th of William F rn ud an Juror Mervin II to be by six It t is that boUt boLl i of them before trying the cue i claimed that Major MaJo ought to be Ian I Tile The substance ot of the motion ud and tbt lb a well as the law nil upon were outlined In the brief of o I Thomas Thomal Filch or of Bait take which fol follow id low lows as presented b by Attorney calL alL MR ITCH BRIEF May Mar It please your honor tit this I is a ii fur for a new trial of this ic ao lion based band U oll subdivision I 4 ud and ot of section tl l of chapter chapler 40 10 of Utah Toe The applicative la lamade Ii made upon the record In the cue can I and upon notice motion and I flIed tIld August tIt 1101 and uttered ber berIn Mr In this da day of August 1800 1300 The ne record shows bow that a previous a llo loD for tor a p new w trial in this ac hull Was mad on the of May f logy on dIfferent grounds from coin thou tho herein assigned ed anti and on rrt grounds not tn In eluded In un I 3 4 ibid and 7 of see let lIon and anI that no motion for a anew i new tra trail 1 I bal Mi ever been made mad In thu action before Ourt un n the grounds no now Toe tiled In it support of this motion that th discovery of the feet upon which de dc defendant relIes UN In support of his lala mo 1110 tWit WU not made until leo than twin I IY ty Y days arn Under th the previsions chapter of Ii the defendant hu has a right to make makl this motion upon the grounds assigned not notwithstanding withstanding a motion for new trial I other bU ban already beer n aust on ivL t Jt t and the I previous motion isle bill TIll Thu right to mo fur i a new trial under subdivisions 3 t 4 and 7 ii not limited by the statute to any time except that such fuch motion must be day dal ot of discovery ot of the fact relied up upI upon On In support ot of the moti Under see 11 this court tu isis lion tion ud and It Il It is its It dut duty to hear ud sad dc d this motion JUROR ATTACKED Tb The of James Bodes Boden Reese Reel Richards Richard Elvis Thompson and John Booths Boothe show bo that on one of tb lbs jurors jUron In the tbt eaR case prior to Icing In called U as i a t two different places placa itt In Brigham City ont once on the theda da day that defendant was arrested and brought In b by the officers and pIn agIn after u an interval of several evel days day I spoke pok ot of defendant M as follows follow I hope bope the they will kill him before they bring him up so 10 as to hue have no bottler bother Its referring to defendant had bad ought to be lynched At another limp limo and pla place said lIeI Re He the ought to I II d death dath If I 1 were on th the jury I I would have him convicted d H He tie Mr to die HI He further hid that he be had known Captain Drown Brown tile the deceased for some time that hat he wax a friend of h hIs lie he having for tor him that AlA Majors jora ought to Lu be hanged and nd he would only be what w was due him anti and then the debt would not be paid On examination on hi Foe ren said Id that be had bad ro no opinion as to the defendants Innocence I or F gUilt and that he be Old lule rI give vt him a alair I lair fair trial Do tb these net the tbt defendant t to a new DeW nial ruE CAE OP OF hOPKINS AND OTHERS In flush vs va Hopkins l tIO Be R 31 RIT IT the tho foreman of tb the jur had said that hat he came caine home to bang ever very damned counterfeIting rascal and hat tbt he ba wu was determined to hang han Ua the at all 11 eventS This was held to C be a for tor aMII a sew In Ib a the State Stale 18 13 Obio N a Surer jUror had d made u lap hi his mind that hat th the guilty tr ft m tl nests made to hint him by ont one ot of lb the grand UI and stated that If the testimony lid not hang him the then I here wan no use UIt of laws Iw The Tho MU lu rem court of Ohio held him to lo be total otilly I Incompetent and a aw w trial trtat In Monroe v vi IS a Ga 0 I S one of the be who tried the had 14 that from what h he knew hll he would the prisoner Tile court ourt ranted a new trill trial Mr J tJ Lam kiD lit remarking it at the Ure that to one ODe capitally such ely Ir Is 11 to perpetrate all an of oft t ease little short abort of murder UI Itself in III Cady Cad 1 the State I 3 How 1 Miss MissI 17 I on of the UIn hum having d declared before the trial that It he be be on thu ho jury Jur he h did not lIt t think h ht could lest olar the defendant but 1 b bound to I find and him bUD guilty The Tb Court a new trial In Bishop VI tb the 9 Oeo the tie Jurors declaration w was UI It if hI he heas Wl as on the be jut Jury he bli would the which being proved by three the Court milled granted a neW flew flewIn In People vs la Plummet tP 11 l 1 dorge L 1 Getchel on jUry n nIs III Is voir dirt dire ud ad w wu accented It was hwn b by tb Ihl of Pulse that I lOn d at 9 the killing declared that pie Is ought to take LAk Plummer lit of t jail I Iad and ad him Th The r rb r II a aC DW C tria saying that the ur A 1 In Iii to tilt lilt upon the he I 1 It I 1 Sa charts vs VI Territory I PM IC RIp Rep IN In ID a murder reler WI III h I It I t 1 I guIle 0 or Inn bUt It nut such luch u III Would I him I living at al a verdict a awl that he be beno hg no flu prejudice e against d the tho trial it Il was wa shown that thet prior to t the trial th the Juror had Miti Id tv tu the iaIa a I that hat lh there f art aft so 0 anan many Intia whose art are loose ItrI and 4 single inCh 11 get lt round around t um and get t the cr r them their will make makl iun play and h ht be lieve In It ant that front from h l he had heard and Iva bout about tb the ea he wan that th lb 1 I It appeared thIt Ji II not t I learn these fUll until after th trial Held that the Juror wu was 1 the tu to nUtt the dee di to it II ht fl trial The court A says there then can lIn ite he no question that the law favor th granting ot of a ne new It clear clearly I appear that ont one of the jurors was U by br reason of bias blu or preJudice an anI the fait of hi his atlon was nt known until after tilt the trial th are ant unanimous moUi thIn that I It t is I the hII duty of the court to t grant a trial In such uch a case cale is when the Juror may have beta been as I hi his and tailed failed tu to the be tact fact which 41 qualified him himIn In State Stat u S lenny Kansas 15 Pe Pie 76 a JUI tr lOr n II his hll vain dire that he had formed nor et en an opinion and was Wal without bias UI or prejudice w was accepted u as uI I 2 juror and On a motion for fl l a ane ne nev trial two Witnesses testified that on the morning after the kUhn killing the juror had said laid In thIr and hl H he hu has kill his uses at lat last h hs I hi h This I is not hol the first at crime ot of tt that kin ho hI ha hila guilty of 01 n It Is II s bad nuin and th ought to ball hang him or 1 with hUn lOt Dot to tile the t to any eSpe Oa 0 thc Ihl at first having made le such statements but on another h had he be hid hacI as recollection t I any web such mont and finally aLt ald that be had bed M recollection of what w said laid at tU the time tim referred to et Held that trial judge Jude ought to have austine the motion for a new trial People vs It Colo the juror on ht hi Voir dir Ir shut he had bad an and expressed no DO opinion as 11 to the guilt ot or t of the defendant lid and that he be could live Iv the M a fair trial On motion for fora a new DeW trial on one testified I heard beard Wm Morgan Morran strong of defendants defendant guilt One ODe of at atthe the expression be used was u this t would hand band the eon on of a on the th donee I already have unless stronger testimony than I hate ble heard could coal be ba In II hi favor The court 4 tl w ioA IU and on oa lb part of the Juror the with the purity fd In the jury Jur box and we ne think the defendant stood tood before the court with that IQ in his hll band and from the verge Velle of the grave ve appealed for a new trial I in his cause b by an I jury It wu was Jail his to be heard and the re to lo grant raDt him that right w such error a as requIres WI us to reverse reverie the j t tot ot of the court below which I is don dons sad ADd the cause is II remanded and tile the neW DW trial awarded OTHER A Numerous other authorities could be cited hut but en enough lub hu has been shown to show the almost unbroken current 0 of authority There are some lome piece pc dents It ii I true to the contrary but they are fl few In number and they thIP ha have not DOt been b by out own owe In People vs 1 ReeSe Utah USI 1114 Id Pac 11 61 th the Juror on his hi vain voir dire answered be was w a clU Sen Irn ot of the United flutes It appear III lag hI he was 81 not the court held that thata a motion mollon fur for a new trIAl ol ought ht to lo have hav been blen In People vs VI Deals Clab 42 the juror was a of the grand jury that the di de fondant hut a ruling a new trIal tria Will was b t the nigh gence or of th defendants and counsel ii not Int the Juror as to his bla Rut Out In a ister CUll cue that of United States v vs Christensen It IS Pie 13 where the juror stated on h hi volt vol dire that he be had firmed or ep expressed in unqualified oN opinIon On as to the of tM lb ud and It that Simon motion n for tor a new trial that tile the later juror was a of th Ih grand rand jury Jill hat found the th court lays Where the aused I en instated the jurors juror their and theY do not answer h he I is thereby not only di 0 of hie hi right or t challenge for tor attic atilt but ma may also I Ill be ruin his hll right of 01 chal enge It If In a lU cus H a defendAnt without negligence nc or 11 hi tart rrt ii di de tied a new trial thc th if mi night ht be done Tt Th n ii a W I trial rial was int I I It is en Ih i to ti It principle In by b l 1 nt only ins b by the t authority bs In n th of 1 tre and ull andt It t beIng shown hown hr hor h by the III ix I n that two of oC oCth th h wh 1 tl to bring Ii hi a Of r ha 1114 ired the 1 ICI and that tha un u n ring th t f uh is h as within th the thirty t allol allotted hr y th tb statute euch Irot this court III of a at 01 eli elia rr r B a n trial iti Ih granting the coast t rr a trial I a du duty aol i |