The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-12-10

Court Of Oyer and Terminer-Judges Auiso,a Ludtoo,
Peirce, Pa1son, and Finleter.
II being generally known that the Court would
this morning finally dispose OF the case OF John
HaDloD. the building was densey crowded from
early hour in the morning. The prisoners appear
ance and manner Indicated change he was as
stubbornly Indifferent as ever His sisters and wife
were with him few moments at the dock, and in
posed by some observers that something
was handed him. The women were ordered away
and left the room, and At the command OF Judge
Paxson the prisoner taken out and searched,
but the object was found only to be ring which he
wished to give his sister, but which she declined to
AT II O'Clock the five judges took their places upon
the bench, and Judge Ludlow, who is looking well
and seems to have entirely recovered from his
recent indisposition proceeded to read ah able
opinion Overruling the motion for new trial.
Opinion Of tho Court
Seven reasons have been fled for new trial In
this case. We shall discuss the first three in the
order in which they are placed upon our record
after we have disposed Of the fourth, fifth, sixth,
and seventh.
We shall, then, in our own order, consider
First The fourth reason assigned, which asserts
that 'tle Assistant District Attorney, in his open
ing the case OF the commonwealth aud the District
the jury in prejudice of the prisoners case that he
the prisoner, was then convict On charge similar
In con sidering the fourth reason 1t is to be re-
marked that, as matter OF fact, the former con-
from the beginning to the end OF the trial.
The fact that he mad been prisoner WAS brought
out in the preliminary examination OF Dunn, aud
| Of Charles III. Harris was proved by the Common
| wealth without an objection by the counsel for the
any way appear, while by the bill OF indictment the
! prisoner was named John Hanlon. alias Charles H.
we remember it, did say:-"A year passed by, and
this man stood IN the dock on serious charge, and
this led to a suspicion" The District Attorney, in
his argument, briefly remarked in substance that
| the prisoner emboldened by former acts did not
ae oe nearest Smm h
| reference to the crime which nanlon had commit
ted, was made by one OF the counsel for the pri-
soner, when in argument he put an hypothetical
the jury saying In substance suppose he tine
prsoner) had been guilty of crimes, is that a reason
why, with the testimony now before the court he
| ought to be convicted OF brutal murder
Having thus stated, as accurately as we can, that
which did take place, ought we for this reason to
II the Assistant District Attorney had for
| mally offered in evidence the record OF HanoH's
| former conviction, and thus expressed to the Jury
the true state OF the facts would any tribunal much
as 1t might desire the offer to be made in writing)
for this reason alone either discharge the Jury aud
| thus release prisoner charged with murder o r
after weeks spent in the investigation OF the
| annul the verdict and retry the prisoner? Such a
| case can not be found in the books, and upon ths
reason OF the thing cannot be sustained.
| moments reflection will convince any enc tn at
| the general and qualified remarks OF the District
| Attorney and his Assistant ought not to be per.
| mitted TO disturb this verdict
Apart from the fact that the counsel for the pri.
s0ner had the right at any time TO call the attention
OF the Court to any improper argument or remark,
notice OF it, and that party caunot take his chance
OF verdict and hold In reserve motion for new
trial, Binn $40, how would 1t be possible ever 70
TRY and successfully convict a prisoner, charged
with murder II during the trial the Commonwealth
counsel, or even the prisoners, should In the heat
OF an argument refer to some thing which indi-
rectly and by some possibility might affect the pri
sOners case? The same principle would destroy the
possibility of obtaining jury TO try cause which
had excited public notice. citizen would not be
had read in a newspaper that HanIon had
been convicted OF an assault with intent
10 commit rape and this principle woald apply
on ha nd a with fhat al nl
acted as a juror in that very case provided he de
clared, upon being challenged for cause, that he
alone by the law and the evidence as it applied K
this prisoner upon this trial. In Ears case tried by
new trial was refused, although one OF the juror
had made bet ON the week before the conrt tina
TIE defendant would be convicted. Open the doc
to the successful Introduction or such
reason as this, and it lis easy to under
stsna now, IN oesperabe cases, convenen
a brief answer, which would sat once destroy tn
most carefully guarded trials and the counsel uool
both sides OF a cause would be obliged TO weig
their words by standard measure heretofore un
known in our courts. We do not believe that tn
prisoner was preJudiced or njlred by anything sal
OF the nature referred to in the reason died, and
know that thi jury were sworn to try the case, no
by the arguments or assertions OF counsel bu
by the law and the evidence. and to this last fac
attention was called in the charge OF the Cour
present. and in the same way, but as some year
have elapsed since that decision was made, W
thought IL but right again to reconsider it and sci
SECOND. The fifth and sixth reasons IS filed, n
late 10 the admission OF Dunn as a Witness and {
the confession TO which he testified.
That Dunn, although recently convict, coul
testify cannot be doubted the moment the psrdo
was placed in his hands, aud by him accepted hi
competency was legally restored that his characte
by his own admissions had been oad, very bad, wa
afact which touched his credibility alone and
this the jury had abundant notice. Having thus di
posed OF witness, the question of the admissibty
the confession is now 10 be considered. Upon tn
point We ought TO remark, that the Court ben
made acquainted with the former character OF DUN
watched with anxiouG and jealous care every d.
velopment OF the evidence so far as It could bes
upon the competency OF the witness Il
question OF the final admission Of the confession
We discovered in the preliminary examlnatlo
the total absence OF any hope, threat, or even II
ducement being held out, made or offered to Il
prisoner by either Dunn, the detectives, of1cers
the prison. or by any other person or persons TT
detectives seleC ted a cool and INTELLIGENT cOnylc