The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-05
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.
THE HILL MURDER.
Mrs. TwitcheII i'm Court.

Allison and Peirce.-This morning Camilla r..
Gw1tchell was In the dock having been brought
up in the van to be present at the naming Ola
day for her trial. She was, heretofore, closely
VelIeu; out she was not SO cast down in appear
snce or so reticent, but oonversed WITH her
counsel and with an old lady who sat beside
AS she signed o document at the instance OF
counsel, her delicate white hand was seen
In strong contrast with the deep black with
Mr.. O'Byrne stated that he appeared upon
me following petition, which was read by
To the Honorable Joseph Allison, Presiding
Judge OF the Court OF Oyer and Tsrminer aud
delpha. The petition of Camilla E. Twltchell
respectfully represents:-
i. That upon the 22d day OF November last
she was arrested upon the charge of having
murdered her mother, Mary L. Hill, upon said
;. g. That from that time until the present hour
ne has been lncarcerated In the Philadelphia
County Prison.
3. That during that whole time she has never
been informed of any fact within the know
ledge OF the officers of The law which in any way
connects her with the crime with which she
stands charged; and she Is Informed aud be-
leves that her counsel have not been made
aware OF any such fact.
4 That under the Constitution and laws of
her country she Is entitled to speedy trial aud
10 oe msoe aware OF the nature AMI cause of the
D. That protesting her entire innocence of the
directly or Indirectly therewitb It becomes to
her matter OF tie last Importance that she be
st once confronted by the witnesses against
ner, thus enabling her to procure and preserve
such evidences of her Innocence as may be
nect ssary, and which evidences lapse of time
She therefore humbly prays your Honor 10
fx an early day for her trial, ana she VIII ever
sworn to and subscribed before ne THIS 9th
day OF January, 1869.
District Attorney Sheppard replied tnat the
indictment had Informed the prisoner fully of
the nature OF the accusation. The Common
wealths officers were as earnestly anxious to
bring this case TO speedy trial as the defense
could be- That 1t had not been tried already
the writ of babeas corpus that was taken
out, especially for the benefit of this prisoner,
| during the pendancy OF that writ Bat wnen
| that was disposed of a new bill was found, and
tot she had already pleaded; she had claimed
cluded last week had consumed fifteen days.
| and absorbed the whole attention of the Com.
| m@nweath's officers. But it was The purpose
| TO take up this case as soon as possible,
| and If he were to name day certain, it would
| Subject to these conditions. he would say next
Monday week which he though. was speedy,
| now In prison charged with murder. Hewould
say Monday week. not quite two weeks distant,
| Mr. O'Byrne said that in view OF the labor of
| the defense and the great importance OF the
she should have speedy trial. If Monday
| week was fixed he sincerely hoped 1t would
prosecution or their desire for time to fix
| up more. evidence. A. speedy trial was her
| CONSTITUTIONAL right: and IL was not often Tn At
prisoners made such requests-in fact OF the
| many now under similar charge, she was the
| only one who had asked for speedy trial.
| Judge Allison said he did not uud derstand the
| District Attorney as qualifying the fl king of the
| day further than to such contingencies as may
| naturally arise In the trial of all C .ses. He
| understood that he expected to be ready on the
| day named, and to proceed unless some un-
should arise He thought Monday week might
be safely named, and would expect both sides
| With this understanding the prisoner left the
| Couri, leaning upon the arm OF her uncle, the
! brother OF Mrs. Hill.
1t appears that many persons dill not know
| this proceeding was to take place. for there
was no crowd about or in the Court House.
| The Judge informed d the jurors that they hsd
! been summoned to try homicide cases. but the
| time and atteutiOn of the District Attorney
| the past few weeks that the business of the
| Court was not yet ready for them, and there
| fore they were discharged until next Monday.
| SUPREME CoURT-Chief Justice Thom pson
and Judges Agnew. Read, and Sharswood.-Th
morning the following Judgments were given:-
sishle vs. sneed. Error to the District Court
XIX Sailor iorH Vs. Clark Grieham eTnoJ Judg.
Cluley, vs.. Lockhart. Grow & Co. Judgment
BY sharswood, ,J:-
The City OF Erie VS.. The Erie Coal Co., EcIe
county. Judgment affirmed.
stlIsell vs. Reynolds. Judgment reversed
and v: I. d. n. awarded.
Kistler ys. Painter Westmoreland county.
Opinion affirmed.
Wood vs.. Wood, Greene county. Decree
affirmed.
Hunt VS.. Gilman. Allegheny county. JuIg.
ment reversed. Thompson, O. j., dissenting
| Wilde VS. Trainer. Allegheny county Judg-
| ment reversed and v, T. d. u. awarded.
Pringle VS. Pringie. Cambria county. Judg-
| mept reversed, and v. T. d. n. awarded.
| Rife VS.. Geyer Allegheny county. Judgment
reversed. and Judgment given for the defen liant
| The argument list was taken up.
NIsI PRIUs-Judge Williams.-Peter X. Titus
| vs. Charles Woodruff. An action to recover
damages for an alleged malicious prosecution.
| On tIisl.
DISTRICT COURT. No. Judge Hare.-Morsn
! vs.. BouTquin. An action upon an alleged
1 breach OF contract for the supply of IN lpS.
| Before reported. On trial.
| DISTRICT COURT No. 2-Judge Greenbank.-
| George Grier Co. We. y. II. Klein d 90. An
| action of replevin to recover certain property
| levied upon for debt. which was alleged to c1n.
| sist OF partnership goods. verdict Tor the
| defendant.
Claghorn, Fleming q Co. vs. Benjamin Row.
| land Il Co. A felgned issue to try the right to
| personal property. 1t was alleged that Lewis
| q. Jennings, manufacturer In Richm9nd,
| became largely Indebted to plaintiffs for goods
| purchased, and then effected an extended credit
| with them by giving them bill OF sale OF the
ment note. He became unable to pay his
debts, and plaintiffs went TO take possession of
| the property, but found that IL had been seized
| by defendants under a subsequent con fessed
| judgment from Jennings, They claimed that
| Iheir right was paramount TO That OF the de-
fSndapts, and hence this suit. On trial.
| COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-Judges Ludlow
was under consideration to-day.