A Jury Played Cards While a Murder Case Hung in the Balance

Murphy, the convicted murderer, was yesterday sentenced by Judge Humes to fifteen years in the penitentiary, the same term imposed upon the former conviction. The proceedings in the courtroom were brief. After overruling a motion for a new trial, the court asked Murphy whether he had any legal reason to offer why sentence should not be pronounced. The prisoner, who maintained his composure throughout the scene, answered that he did not. Mr. Ronald, his attorney, then arose and asked for a short sentence, in view of the fact that Murphy had already been in the penitentiary and served part of the first sentence, and also that he was now an old man and any term, however short, almost necessarily meant imprisonment. Judge Humes then imposed the sentence, confining his remarks to the fact of conviction. He spoke, it seemed, the fewest words possible under the circumstances.

In support of the motion for a new trial Murphy's attorneys introduced an affidavit to the effect that the jury, during the 42-hour session before arriving at a verdict, had been guilty of misconduct. It was claimed that they were allowed to play cards in the room, and that instead of deliberating upon their verdict they played whist, pedro and other games. Murphy claimed further that he was greatly prejudiced by the court requiring him to be put upon trial for murder in the first degree after he had been by a former verdict duly and regularly acquitted. The jurymen, he says, for thirty-four hours after being out stood four for acquittal, four for murder in the first degree and four for guilty of crime in an intermediate degree, and during the thirty-four hours there was practically little change in the standing of the jury; that the verdict of murder in the second degree was a compromise and would not have been rendered had he not been put upon trial for murder in the first degree. The four who stood for acquittal never would have voted for the verdict rendered or for any crime whatever, unless the four in favor of a verdict in the first degree had agreed to the compromise in order to prevent a mistrial.

Referring to the testimony of George Gordon, reputed to be the only eyewitness of the shooting, the affidavit states that a majority of the jury believe that Gordon was not in the saloon at the time, but on the sidewalk, and therefore could not have seen the tragedy enacted. It is stated also that the verdict was rendered, not upon the testimony of Gordon, but of Detective Edward Cudihee and Melvin G. Winstock, who testified relative to statements made by Murphy soon after his arrest, when the convicted man insisted that the officers were mistaken. Murphy acknowledges the truth of the statement, but says he took that means of evading the officers until he could see an attorney. To find the verdict upon such testimony, the affidavit declares, is totally in disregard of the instructions of the court.

The sentence on the first trial: Murphy was sent to the penitentiary January 14, 1894, and remained there until August 13, 1894, when he was brought back to the King County Jail under the notice of the supreme court granting a new trial. The only advantage he can gain from the new trial is to get the verdict again reversed and the case retried on the plea of former jeopardy. Notice of appeal has not yet been given, but Mr. Ronald's last words to his client were: 'Be of good cheer. The sentence will not stand.'