The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1878-06-22
THE RYAN MURDER CASE.
The Motion for a New Trial 0verruled


sci for prisoner in the case of the
State Us. Thomas Ryan, convicted o.
the murder of John Evans, at Wiese',
coffee house, in Donaldsonville, OF
the 2lst day of June, 1877. As we
anticipated, the motion was over.
ruled, and the reasons set forth BY
the Judge for this ruling embrace
/ such a faithful and succinct statement
of the circumstances of the case, and
of the only just and rational conclu-
sions to be deduced therefrom, that
we publish the decision in full, as
| follows:
Accused filed his motion for new trial,
with affidavit, and was heard through his
counsel, who argued in support thereof; the
State replying through the District At
torney.
The mover, 7. Ryan, did not state with
accuracy the evidence addueed ON the trial
of this case. With the aid Of our notes.
taken down at the trial, and recollection of
the evidence, we will sum up the material
facts proved upon the points raised by the
mover.
Accused was not warned by the officers of
justice against deceased, but was merely
told not to commit further acts of breach of
the peace 4s
No threats were made by deceased on the
day of the shooting. The day before the
shooting deceased pulled accused out of bed
and assaulted him. The same day he
punched him with his fist, threatened to
punch him again, and they afterwards had
a scutfle and officer st. Martin arrested ac-
cused, who was then beastly drunk, and
locked him up in jail
Next morning he was released from Jail
entirely sober. Shortly after, he and de-
ceased appeared before Justice Evans to
settle some money matters. and it was then
and there that deceased remarked that in
stead of having gone to law he should have
taken it out of him. They had separated
apparently appeased and satisfied, If not
friendly, each one departing in a separate
and opposite direction. At the seufie the
evening before officer St. Martin found &C
clrsed with an oyster knife in mis- hand ar
rested him, searched him, found no weapon
on his person and incarcerated him, as has
already been stated. Mr.. Summerville. tes-
titles that accused endeavored to borrow a
pistol from him to shoot deceased, as he,
accused, told witness, but witness could
not recollect whether this was the day of
the shooting or the day before. la
But on the day of shooting and after the
separation at the Justices, accused went in
at IsraeFs saloon, took drink, then as he
was stepping ont, drew forth pistol and
walked in the direction of Wiese's saloon,
some sixty PAGES Distant and in few sec
onds after shot was heard in Wiese's
saloon and people were seen rushing there
This was between and 4 Z. M.
It is proved that deceased was seated at
Wiese's saloon quietly reading at between
3 and 4 o'clock P. NJ, when accused en-
tered, walked to the bar, turned around,
invited deceased to take drink, which be-
ing refused, accused cursed deceased, said
fpia ..f |,
for him; and as deceased was about to rise
to go out of the house, as Miss Wiese, the
bar tender, declares, accused being about
eighteen feet distant from deceased, DELHI
erately shot him with a pistol. The theory
of accused is that deceased was rising from
his chair, not to leave the house, but to
commit an assault and battery on him.
Admitting this to be true, still there were
eighteen feet separating. them when accused |
tired. The mere rising from the chair did |
not show the aninlus of deceased. Had |
he advanced on accused, or in rising turned
towards accused, he would have received |
the shot full in the chest. Being shot while |
n sitting position, or while rising, and his /
body slightly turned towards the door, he |
would have boon struck, where in fact he |
was actually struck, in the left breast. The I
position of the bar, the door near which de- I
ceased sat and the place where accused |
stood all tend to prove this undoubtedly, as |
was evidenced. R& - sss
After being shot deceased walked to the |
counter, took therefrom a tumbler and |
knocked accused down. st. Martin soon ar /
Tved on the spot, searched deceased and I
ound no weapon on him. Deceased then |
md there told St.. Martin that he had the /
life OF accused in his hands, after the shoot
ng, but as he himself had received his death
wound he would not kill accused. He de- I
dared to st. Martin that he knew he was !
nortally wounded, that his hour had come
md was near, begged of him to send for a
'rlest told st. Martin that accused had shot
lin, and detailed to him the circumstances
# the shooting. The priest came soon after
nd administered to him the last sacrameuts
i tho Catholic Church. DIR. j. Z. Dutfel
bout the same time examined the wound of
deceased and declared that internal hemor-
hage was going on. Deceased was taken
n board a boat next morning, reached the
ospItal IN the evening and died there the
ext night of internal hemorrhage produced
" pistol or gunshot wound in the left
reasG-so DIR. Beard testified. From the +
Mortal nature of the wound and the speedy
cath which followed its in1iction, the de-
eased must have felt and known that he
7as IN eStreniis and his dying declaration
D st. Martin comes within the rule laid
own by law and was clearly admissible
We do not see why the dying declaration
luded. Death h as severed the identity of
heir legal rights and interests and had put
n end TO the happiness and confidence
hieh subsisted between them, which the
wv so studiously protects and cherishes
-hile the relations of husband and wife :
ontinue to exist. Were the declarant living {
Q would be a competent witness. He is
ow dead, consequently not party to nor :
lterested in the suit Of the State rs. Thos, :
yam, and his dying declaration to his wife,
e think, may be received.
Should the dying declaration made by de-
sased to his wife be rejected, still we have
ne declaration made to Mr. Dugan and the | n
her made to Mr.. Horegan, in the hospital
New Orleans, and they are substantially 9
mllar TO his declaration in Donaldsonville g
AIDE to st. Martin; and the eyidense of Miss :
'lese, who witnessed the whole transaction, |
'rroborates these dyirg declarations in
7ery respect Her testimony proves most
that deceased was reading in / 4
e saloon when accused walked in, rendered
e invitation to drink, then abused and | r
Irsed deceased and then deliberately shot
IN.
As to the alleged discovery by accused of
w evidence we will say: That Dr. Beard
rs on the stand at the trial and was in
rrogated BY accused, who thus had annie