Daily Kennebec Journal

THE GUITEAU CASE
Mr. Scoville Files Motions for a New Trial
With the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
The Arguments to be Heard Next Week.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28.

Shortly before five this afternoon, Mr. Scoville filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the papers upon which he based his motion or motions for a new trial. Not being familiar with the practice in the District, Mr. Scoville concluded to file two motions, to assure himself against the possibility of being deprived through any legal technicalities of the right of review by the court in a general term. The papers filed in support of the motions are as follows:-
The affidavits of Frederick H. Snyder as to the finding of a newspaper under circumstances indicating that it had been read by the jury.
The affidavit of J. W. Guiteau, that he is acquainted with the signatures of five jurors whose names are written on the margin of the newspaper said to have been seen by the jury. That he has seen them write their names, and believes the writing upon said newspaper to have been made by the jurors named.
The last affidavit is that of Mr. Scoville, setting forth newly discovered evidence upon which he bases his motion for a new trial as follows:
United States of America, District of Columbia, ss. In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a criminal term. United States vs. Charles J. Guiteau. Case No. 140,560. Indictment for murder. Now comes the defendant in this case by George Scoville, his attorney, and moves the court to set aside the verdict in this case and grant a new trial upon the following grounds, to wit:
First-By reason of an uncertainty in said verdict, in that the jury thereby found the defendant "Guilty as indicted," whereas the indictment consists of different counts variant from and inconsistent with each other in matters of substance.
Second-That said verdict of the jury does not specify which count or counts of the indictment it was founded upon and several of the counts being materially different from the other. Defendant is not advised by the form or substance of said verdict as to the finding of the jury upon material facts of the death or place of the death of the deceased.
Third-For that trial of this case was commenced at the June term of 1881 of this court and was not concluded in the same term of court but was extended into the December term without the authority of law.
Fourth-For that this court has no jurisdiction of this cause by reason of the death of the deceased having taken place outside of the District of Columbia.
Fifth-For that court erred in overruling each and all prayers upon the questions of law asked by the counsel for the defence and in refusing to instruct the jury as requested in each of the fourteen prayers, proposed by them and shown in pages 1756, 1757 and 1758 of the printed record in the case.
Sixth-That the court erred on the trial of this cause in excluding the proper evidence, offered by the defence, as set forth in the bill of exceptions.
Seventh-That the court erred on the trial of this cause in admitting to the jury improper evidence on the part of the prosecution as shown in the bill of exceptions.
Eighth-That the court erred in commenting improperly, during the trial, upon the conduct of the defendant and in entering into an arrangement with the district attorney (without the knowledge of the counsel for the defendant) whereby the jury and expert witnesses for the prosecution during a portion of the trial might observe certain conduct of the defendant to subserve the purpose of the prosecution, (the defence being insanity) without the restraining power of the court being exercised until those purposes were accomplished to the great prejudice of the defendant.
Ninth-Misbehavior of the jury in reading or hearing read to them newspapers calculated to prejudice their minds against the defendant as shown in the affidavits of Frederick H. Snyder, Geo. Scoville and John W. Guiteau filed herewith.
Tenth-By reason of new and material facts unknown at the time of the trial and not ascertainable by reasonable diligence on the part of the defendant or his attorney, having come to light since the trial, as shown in the affidavit filed herewith.
Eleventh-That the verdict is contrary to the evidence.
Twelfth-That the verdict is contrary to the law of the case.
George Scoville,
Defendants Attorney.

The bill of exceptions is a reiteration of the above motion for a new trial.
Guiteau's affidavit states that by reason of his confinement in jail and being restrained of his liberty he has been unable personally to give any attention to those matters pertaining to the question of a new trial in the case, to ascertain any facts bearing thereon from hearsay, and that he therefore has been compelled to leave the whole matter to his attorney, Geo. Scoville, Esq., and to rely upon such information of points as he may have been able to obtain.
(Signed)
Charles J. Guiteau.

Snyder's affidavit states he stopped at room 316, National Hotel, and that on the 13th of December, 1881, between 5 and 6 P. M., he was passing along the hall. He found the door of room 92, occupied by the jurors in the Guiteau case, open, and no person therein; saw a newspaper lying on the table therein, and knowing that to be one of the rooms occupied by or frequented by some of the said jurors, and that it was forbidden them to have newspapers, this affiant slipped into the said room and took the said newspaper, which on examination, proved to be an Evening Critic extra, published in Washington, and issued on the 19th day of November, 1881, and the reading matter of which was composed almost entirely of the reported proceedings of the court on the trial of this cause during the day of the date of said newspaper, and what purported to be a report of the testimony in part in said cause, the whole account of the attempt to shoot the prisoner by one Jones, and an editorial upon the subject of the conduct of the prisoner in court and otherwise strongly animadverting upon his character and conduct and calculated to incite prejudice in the minds of the jurors against him and purporting to state that public opinion was strongly against the prisoner and which, with other things will more fully and at large appear by reference to said newspaper.
Affiant further saith that all writing and marks on said newspaper, consisting of what purports to be the signatures of some of the jurors aforesaid and of one of the officers in charge of them, and of the initial letters of names were written thereon at the time the affiant took the said newspaper from said room, the same as they now appear thereon, except the initials of the name of this affiant and the date when he so found said newspaper, in pencil, which were (together with the number of the room from which said paper was taken) written by this affiant in the second column from the right hand margin near the top thereof on the second page of said paper. On the same evening when he obtained said newspaper, at the time said newspaper was obtained by affiant, as aforesaid, the jurors were all absent from their rooms in said hotel. The affiant deeming the matter of some importance in the interests of justice, as he knew the jurors were forbidden to read a newspaper, forthwith called the attention of the counsel for the prisoner to the fact, and when requested, handed said newspaper to him. Attached to this affidavit is a copy of the Critic, alluded to, with the names of the jurors mentioned, written in ink across the margins.