In the State of Illinois Grand Division, Supreme Court. Motion made by the counsel for the convicted (now the plaintiffs) for an Assignment of Errors. Errors of the first case argued in the motion to the Illinois Supreme Court include: error in refusing to quash the indictment; error in refusal to grant separate trials; errors in the empanelling of the jury; error in admitting improper evidence and the refusal to allow proper evidence offered by the defendants; error in refusing a new trial and; error in the giving of the instructions to the jury. Signed by W. P. Black, Salomon & Zeisler, and Leonard Swett, of counsel.

And now come August Spies, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden, Albert R. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, Osacr Neebe, Louis Lingg and George Engel severally and each for himself says that in the record and proceedings aforesaid there is manifest and material error in this, to wit:

The Court erred in refusing to quash the indictment.

The Court erred in refusing to grant a separate trial to the defendants Spies, Schwab, Fielden, Neebe and Parsons.

The Court erred in not allowing the defendants' challenge for cause to the jurors named in the bill of exceptions.

The Court in refusing to permit the defendants to ask questions of jurors calculated to ascertain their bias or prejudice and qualifications as jurorsz.

The Court erred in refusing defendants' motion to have the jurors summoned from the jury list prepared by the County Board, after the regular panel was exhausted.

The Court erred in denying defendants' several challenges to the array of jurors.

The Court erred in permitting the States Attorney to exercise more than twenty peremptory challenges.

The Court erred in compelling the defendants to tender the State a panel of four instead of requiring the State to tender the defendants a panel of four jurors.

The Court erred in refusing to permit the defendants to pass upon the jurors and exercise the right of peremptory challenge, after the State had passed upon the jurors.

The Court erred in admitting improper evidence offered on behalf of the People.

The Court in refusing to admit proper evidence offered by the defendants.

The Court erred in allowing the State's Attorney, on cross examination of defendants and their witnesses on behalf of defendants, to ask irrelevant and improper questions.

The Court erred in refusing to grant the motion to direct a verdict of not guilty as to the defendants other than Spies and Fischer, at the close of the evidence on behalf of the State.

The Court erred in refusing to send out the jury previous to argument on motion to direct a verdict of not guilty as to Oscar Neebe and other defendants.

The Court erred in refusing a new trial because the verdict is manifestly against the law and the evidence in the case.

The Court erred in giving People's Instructions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 5 1/2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 13 1/2.

The Court erred in refusing to give Defendants' Instructions marked "Refused" (See Record, Vol. O. pp 10 to 18 incl.)

The Court erred in giving the instruction sua motu.

The Court erred in reading the instruction on behalf of the defendant Ling in particular, the making oral remarks in connection therewith, and finally withdrawing said instruction and marking it "Refused" in the presence of the jury. (Record Vol. O. pp 32 33.)

The Court erred in refusing to order the examination of Otis S. Favor, on the motion for new trial, as to the misconduct of the special bailiff.

The Court erred in permitting the States Attorney to ask improper questions of witness is called to testify to the character of Harry L. Gilmer for truth and veracity.

The Court erred in admitting improper evidence offered by the State in rebuttal.

The Court erred in refusing anew trial asked on the ground of the misconduct of the States Attorney in his closing argument to the jury.

The Court erred in refusing to grant a new trial by reason of the misconduct of the jurors in taking notes of the evidence during the trial.

The Court in making improper remarks in the presence and hearing of the jury.

The Court erred in overruling the defendants' motion in arrest of Judgment.

The Court erred in giving judgment on the verdict.

There is other manifest and material error in the record by reason whereof plaintiff's severally pray that said judgment may be reversed &c.

By W. P. Black
and Salomon & Zeisler,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Error.

Leonard Swett, of counsel.