The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-05-14
DIR. SCHOEPPE.
The Case Argued In the Supreme Cou

The Case Argued In the supreme Court.
HARRISBURG, May 13.-Immediately upon
the convening of the Supreme Court for the
Middle District this morning, the case OF Dr.
Paul Schoeppe, convicted OF murder in the
Court of Cumberland county, came up on a
writ of error under the recent act of Assembly
allowing review of evidence by the Supreme
Court.
Mr. Miller, on behalf of the plaintiff in error,
filed motion for reargument of the case.
Justice Agnew observed. during MIR. Millers
address, that the act of Assembly did not allow
of the taking of new testimony
Mr.. Miller believed that the sense of the re-
cent act was to take up all the evidence with the
record, with such exceptions to the testimony
as may bear upon the case.
Justice Agnew said that it was manifestly the
duty of the Supreme Court to review the evil
dence in its bearing upon the guilt OF the pri-
soner-in other words, it was from the evidence
that the Court must pronounce whether or not
the testimony should warrant conviction; and
it was impostant to have the evidence just as it
was delivered.
Mr.. Miller believed that Judge Graham had
accurately taken down all the material points
of the testimony.
Chief Justice Thompson said that when the
act of the Legislature authorizing review OF
evidence passed there was no case pending.
This case was sent back on the 14th of February,
and 1t was not until the 18th that the act was
passed. 1t was now, he thought, impossible to
open the Judgment again.
Judge Sharswood thought perhaps this act of
Assembly might bring up bill of exceptions
Chief Justice Thompson observed that there
must and ought to be an end to every case.
The question was tcilen had this case closed, or
was il still open
The following pleadings were then filed by
the counsel in this easel
Schoeppe VS.. The Commonwealth OF Pennsyl-
yania. In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
No IS, May term, 1870.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by her
attorneys, g. 4. Maglaughlin and w. j. Shearer
saws that the plaintiff ought not to have or main
tain his said writ of error in this court because,
that heretofore, to wit: ON the fourteenth day of
February, in the year OF our Lord 1870, ludg-
ment was entered by this Honorable Court
against the said Paul Schoeppe and in favor OF
the said Common wealth of Pennsylvania, in a
certain writ of error, taken in the Identical
cause and for the same alleged errors, Tor which
the present writ of error has been sued out;
which said judgment still remains in full effect
an0 not in the least made void. And this the
said Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is ready to
certify by the records of this court, wherefore
the said Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prays
Judgment, if the said plaintiff ought to have or
c. e. MAGLAUGHLN,
VIM. j. SHEARER,
Attorneys for defendant.
Replication filed by Messrs. Miller and Hep
burn, atom for plaintiff in error:-
And said Paul Schoeppe etc, ought not to be
precluded from being heard because he says
that although true that the indictment and judg-
ment of the Court of Oyer and Termlner in this
case was before this Honorable Court, and the
said judgment was affirmed on the 14th day o
February 1870, as on a writ of error at common
law Gas pro at the opinion of this Court on file)
yet he AYERS that the proceedings, the bill q
exceptions to the admission and rejection o
evidence, and the exceptions to the charge o.
the Court, aud the answers TO the point taken by
defendant, and sealed by said Court OF Dye
and Ierminer of Cumberland county, were neye
before this Court, nor has any judgment eve
been rendered upon them by this Court.
And he further AYERS in this, his replication
of article 4
section 9Th, declares that the party accused q