Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

State of Arkansas Plaintiff} Clark Circuit

Vs } Court January

George Oxford Defendant} Term 1885

 

Motion for New Trial

 

And comes the said George Oxford by Alex Mason his attorney and moves the court for a new trial in this action for the following reasons to wit.

1st That the verdict given in this case, is against and contrary to the weight of evidence and the law of the case.

2nd That the court in the trial of this cause erred in rejecting the evidence offered by the defen- dant to prove, that the deceased had threatened to whip the de- fendant and the circumstances connected therewith which would have shown malice and a deter- mination of the deceased to do the defendant great bodily harm.

3rd That the court erred on the trial of this case in charging the Jury verbally after written instructions had been sumitted and passed upon by the Court, which verbal instructions materially influenced the verdict of the Jury, as defendant believes.

4th That Court erred in the trial of this cause in refusing to charge the Jury as asked for by the defendant in first instruction so asked but modified same by interlineation between the 12th and 13th lines of said first instruction which modification reads as follows to wit (provided he did not seek the difficulty) which materially changed the said instruction so asked.

5th That the Court erred in the trial of this cause by refusing to give the 2nd instruction as asked for by the defendant, but added the following to wit (provided he was not equally the aggressor or did not seek the difficuluty) which materials changed the same to the predjudice of the defendants rights.

McMillan & Mason for

Deft.

****************************************

State of Arkansas Plaintiff} Clark Circuit

Vs } Court January

George Oxford Defendant} Term 1885

 

Motion for New Trial

 

And comes the said George Oxford by Alex Mason his attorney and moves the court for a new trial in this action for the following reasons to wit.

1st That the verdict given in this case, is against and contrary to the weight of evidence and the law of the case.

2nd That the court in the trial of this cause erred in rejecting the evidence offered by the defen- dant to prove, that the deceased had threatened to whip the de- fendant and the circumstances connected therewith which would have shown malice and a deter- mination of the deceased to do the defendant great bodily harm.

3rd That the court erred on the trial of this case in charging the Jury verbally after written instructions had been sumitted and passed upon by the Court, which verbal instructions materially influenced the verdict of the Jury, as defendant believes.

4th That Court erred in the trial of this cause in refusing to charge the Jury as asked for by the defendant in first instruction so asked but modified same by interlineation between the 12th and 13th lines of said first instruction which modification reads as follows to wit (provided he did not seek the difficulty) which materially changed the said instruction so asked.

5th That the Court erred in the trial of this cause by refusing to give the 2nd instruction as asked for by the defendant, but added the following to wit (provided he was not equally the aggressor or did not seek the difficuluty) which materials changed the same to the predjudice of the defendants rights.

McMillan & Mason for

Deft.

BACK