MR. VAN VOORHIS: I ask your Honor also to charge the jury that there is sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of not guilty. THE COURT: I cannot charge that. MR. VAN VOORHIS: Then why should it go to the jury? THE COURT: As a matter of form. MR. VAN VOORHIS: If the jury should find a verdict of not guilty, could your Honor set it aside? THE COURT: I will debate that with you when the occasion arises. Gentlemen, you may deliberate here, or retire, as you choose. The jury retired for consultation, and the Court took a recess until 7 P.M. The Court re-convened at 7 o'clock, when the clerk called the jury, and asked them if they had agreed upon their verdict. The foreman replied in the negative, whereupon the Court said: THE COURT: Is there anything upon which I can give you any advice, gentlemen, or any information? A JUROR: We stand 11 for conviction, and 1 opposed. THE COURT: If that gentleman desires to ask any questions in respect to the questions of law, or the facts in the case, I will give him any information he desires. (No response from the jury.) It is quite proper, if any gentleman has any doubt about anything, either as to the law or the facts, that he should state it to the Court. Counsel are both present, and I can give such information as is correct. A JUROR: I don't wish to ask any questions. THE COURT: Then you may retire again, gentlemen. The Court will adjourn until to-morrow morning. The jury retired, and after an absence of about ten minutes returned into court. The clerk called the names of the jury and then said: THE CLERK: Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your verdict? THE FOREMAN: We have. THE CLERK: How say you, do you find the prisoners at the bar guilty of the offense whereof they stand indicted, or not guilty? THE FOREMAN: Guilty. THE CLERK: Hearken to your verdict as it stands recorded by the Court. You say you find the prisoners at the bar guilty of the offense whereof they stand indicted, and so say you all. MR. VAN VOORHIS: I ask that the jury be polled. The clerk polled the jury, each juror answering in the affirmative to the question, "Is this your verdict?" On the next day, June 19, 1873, the counsel for the defendants, Mr. John Van Voorhis, made a motion to the Court, for a new trial in behalf of Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh and William B. Hall. The argument was oral and is not given, but the following are the grounds of the motion: 1. The indictment contains no sufficient statement of any crime under the Acts of Congress, upon which it is framed. 2. The Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the offense. 3. It was an error, for which a new trial should be granted, to refuse the defendants the fundamental right to address the jury, through their counsel. This is a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. (_See Article VI. of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 1 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, pages 682, 683 and 684._)