The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-03-16
M'ELHANEY DOOMED.
The Supreme Court Of Boston 0verrules .
Motion for New Trial for the Wife MUIR
derer-To Be Hanged on Friday Next.

BOSTON, Mass, March 10, 1873.
Boston, like New York, Is going to have satlsfac-
ton next Friday, in the execution OF one OF her
murderers. james McElhaney, who killed his
wife and was properly convicted and sentenced,
and subsequently had stay OF proceedings, was
doomed to-day by the decision OF the Supreme
Court, and arrangem ents will De made for his exc
cutlon on the 21st inst. The case came before the
Court on melton for a new trial. and after very
full nearing the motion was overrued. The Court
said that the power of granting new trials in
capital cases had long been recognized in this
Court. The general principle which governed the
entertainment Of such motions for new trials had
been admirably laid down by Chief Justice Parker,
in the year 1922, in the case OF the Commonwealth
VS.. samuel Green.
Judge Gray then read an extract from the opinion
referred to, which was as follows-
Certainly cases may arise when the exercise Of this
IN the Court would be sauary and WISE but every
and be Judged of with due respect to the rights Of the
public tie interest p ne GTsSnsT
sure the most favorable consideration Of all eircum
cence rom punishment ana even TO extend TO the guilty
all the legal Tag Of trial sut when there Re has
partial and in which all the legal rights Of the party
Courts are bound e the evidence Upon when
e verdict in easr that they
S1 iSs s o. OS % RSgh to ry
S6sT mems %nds y specific Kind assTss
has concern But on n motion to their discretion
they must necessarily revise the evidence and must
judge for themselves Of the probable bearing of the cir
cumstances relied on TO support the motion. Having
is within the Of the Court that the this
power where there has been trial dis
cretionary If every suggestion should be listened
without regard to the merits Of the the
ing Of the fact suggested II Is certain that the
public Justice would be much distracted and that the
punishment of crime would often be evaded IL power
10 be used sparngy for the protection Of innocence
not to screen the guilty
The Court then referred to the responsibility
thrown upon 1t In cases OF this kind. The question
was not whether second jury might be induced to
give verdict In favor OF the accused party, but
the whole matter cones afresh before the Court,
who are bound to decide whether not the de-
mands OF justice required new trial. In the pres
ent case II there reasonable doubt OF the sanity
OF the prisoner, such sanity as would make him
responsible Tor his acts In deciding this question
the Court was bound to take into consideration all
the testimony and all acts and conduct OF the pris
oRer
Alter reviewing the evidence OF the medical ex.
perts Judge Gray said that taking the whole evil
dence In the case and the danger OF relying on the
testimony Of experts merely In relation to state
ments made BY the prisoner subsequent to the
trial. the Court was obliged by its sense Of justice
TO resolve that 1t had no reasonable doubt that
McElhaney was sane when he committed the act OF
killing; consequently the Court would, by sending
the case again to jury be aiding In the return OF
verdict against law and evidence.
IL would be dercliction OF duty TO grant this
motion, and, therefore, feeling perfectly clear of
what our duty requires, 1t Is perfectly clear that
me melton ahQnla Re oyerrulsd