Greensboro, April 16—Judge James E. Boyd of Federal Court set aside the verdict against Mrs. Florence C. Varner at 6:15 o’clock this afternoon declaring that certain circumstances revealed concerning the formation and conduct of the jury while with the case clouded the justice of the issue and verdict.
Mrs. Varner was found guilty February 26 of committing adultery with Baxter McRary, a wealthy mulatto of Lexington. Since that time she has remained secluded in a local sanitarium and has refused to be seen or converse with anyone save her attorneys.
Following the ruling of Judge Boyd, E.T. Cansler, leading attorney for Mrs. Varner, made a motion that the new trial be moved to another division of the Western Federal district of North Carolina. It is known that Juge Boyd favors this procedure, but he would not commit himself to a definite ruling this afternoon.
Submission of a large number of affidavits and also speeches by four attorneys, two for either party, consummated the entire day. A large number of witnesses attended the hearing. Judge Boyd spoke for 15 minutes before announcing his decision.
Grounds for Decision
Judge Boyd stated that several facts introduced in the affidavits for the plaintiff furnished sufficient grounds to set the verdict aside.
The fact that F.T. Thomas, juror, had expressed an opinion before the conclusion of the trial that Mrs. Varner was guilty was one, he said.
Another, he declared lay in the al(line unreadable) had permitted the man to talk to several kinsmen.
A discrepancy in the testimony of Mr. Varner while on the stand, he stated, was a third reason for a new trial. Mr. Varner while on the stand, he stated, was a third reason for a new trial. Mr. Varner, it was brought out, had written Judge Boyd a letter stating that he had gotten dates mixed up while he testified relative to Mrs. Varner’s visits to her mother since their marriage. He had stated that Mrs. Varner had not visited her mother since 1907. He admitted in the letter to Judge Boyd that she had visited her mother again in 1917.
Attorneys representing Mr. Varner denied all but the latter allegation, which was admitted. However, Judge Boyd maintained and ruled that they in themselves were sufficently, he deemed, to emphasize the possibility of error in the verdict.
Judge Boyd refused to commit himself to either side definitely, but admitted that she has his sympathies like anyone else.
No date was set for a new trial. This, with the court jurisdiction, will be announce later.
From the front page of The Dunn Dispatch, April 19, 1921.
No comments:
Post a Comment