The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-12-08
THE CAMDEN MURDERER.
New Jerseys Court of Errors Refuses
Benjamin Hunters Plea.
ONLY ONE MORE LOOPIIOIE.
Unanimous Confirmation of the
Death Sentence.
TRENTON. Dec. Z. 1873.

Chief Justice Beasley rendered the unanimous opn-
ion of the Court in the Hunter murder case, to the
effect that all the exceptions taken by Mr. George Mr.
Robson to the ruling Of the court below not
sustained and the judgment affirmed. Conse-
quenty il the Court of Pardons the Governor does
not interfere Hunter will be hanged the 10th of
next January. The last session of the present term
of the Court of Pardons held this afternoon II
Hunters friends petition for Communication OF SEN
tence special session must be called by the Gov
if he thinks prudent necessary. The
room densely crowded during the reading Of the
opinion. The following is full synopsis of the
opinion
DECISION THE COURT.
The plaintiff in error convicted of murder in
the first degree before the Court Of Oyer and Term
ner of the county OF Camden, and, by the authority
recent statute relative to wrts Of Error in cap
al cases certain parts of the proceedings his trial
have been brought before this court for revision.
shall notice briefly each part thus presented in the
before the, Court by his counsel. The first
and second Of the objections thus made to
and rest on the same ground. and may be
disposed of conformity and in word They relate
to alleged defects in the first and sixth counts Of the
indictment. but as there is and can he prctence
that some of the other counts not good it would
be useless for present purposes to consider what
weight there is in such exceptions for it has long
since been authorativey established by judicial de-
cision in this state that single good count in in
dicment is sufficient to sustain the Judgment West
vs. The State Fab. 236. and the there cited
The third, fourth and fifth exceptions relate
to but one subject presenting it in differ
ent aspects and under varied forms Of OBJ
lection. The point raised is this-That in
two Of the counts of Indictment the death
Of John Nj. Armstrong is laid as having occurred in
this State, while in each Of the other four counts
there is an averment Of his death in the State Of
Pennsylvania Upon this it is objected. in the Ian
guage of counsel, that "ths is not different form of
averment of the crime, but the two classes of
are 70 be sr
the first and sixth the death of John NJ. Armstrong
who died in the State Of New Jersey, and the remain
| ing four counts-the death of John NJ. Armstrong.
who must have been different person, since he died
in the State of Pennsylvania This indictment
| tans two distinct charges of felony and murder
| done by the prisoner upon two different persons,
| making the indictment multifarious. homogeneous
and bad On this point the Chief Justice saws that IL it
! be shown that Hunter murdered two men instead
OF one there is no reason why the present sentence
should not stand 1t has always been held that the
only mode of Directing to the joinder of several dis
| tinct feonies in indictment is by motion to
the trial court before plea to quash the indictment.
or in subsequent stage of the proceedings to apply
to compel the prosecutor to elect which charge he
will try; and it is further settled that the decisions
on such motions are not subject to review
| brought.
HEARsAy EVIDENCE
The next two exceptions relate to alleged hearsay
evidence, which is an important question The Chief
Justice discussed this very fully. As to whether
| the of Armstrong should have been al
lowed to testify that his father told him he was going
to Camden with the plaintiff in the night Of
the murder. and to the admssibility evidence Of
the note written by Armstrong TO his wife on the
afternoon of the murder. the Chief Justice
was of the opinion that such communications were
| no part of the matter in controversy unless
i they connected with the act OF the deceased
in going to Camden as to be in reasonable part
| OF such act Few problems involved in the law OF
evidence more unsolved than what things are to
be embraced in those occurrences that are
in the law as the res ges@. Rulings can be found by
| which it would be admitted. The Chief Justice
! cludes that these communications of the deceased
should be regarded constituents of that transac
tion as they were preparations for it and they were
| naturally connected with it. At the time the words
| were uttered written they impaired wrong
| doing to any one. and the reference to the
| panion who to go with him nothing
more. matters then stood, than an
indication Of the ado additional circnmstance
for this man to leave word or TO state where he
going it was equally so for him to say with AIhom
therefore strongly associated with the act in contem
plation. that the most exact contemporaneousness
the connection between them. 1t was in the connec-
ton to be disclosed that this testimony adj
mitted by the judge At the trial witness for the
State had been produced who had testified that he had
overheard certain conversation on the day of the
murder between the victim. Mr.. Armstrong. and tho
defendant, Mr.. Hunter This witness, referring TO
the latter person. said II saw him in the Office talk
ing to Mr.. Armstrong. heard him say this
man has a bank account heard IL from private or
outside parties, do not know which You go there
tonight at seven O'Clock and will go with YOU
MEETING OF HUNTER AND ARNSrRoSG.
Here. then. 1t il affirmed that Mr. Hunter made
offer to go with the deceased it certainly compe
tent to show that this was mutual understanding
mitted with that view and for that single purpose
Whether the deceased alluded to the plan proposed to
be made manifest only by his words. Otherwise than
in this way, how ID possible to show the
Of the deceased to the proered arrangement?
Suppose the defence had shown that a proposition
had been made by some third party to accompany
the deceased TO Camden the night in question could
il have been reasonably contended that such evidence
could not have been supplemented and made signif-
cant by proof that the deceased evinced by his state
ments that he his side had agreed to the proposal
n md WA tn
of the evidence the case seems to be brought fully
within that other exception to the rule excluding
hearSay which lcgalizes declarations which
planatory of state of mind such mental condition
being subject of inquiry. In the case of Lord vs.
Inhabitants of Tynsburgh already cited the principle
which is applied. is stated in these terms:"Perhaps
the most common and largest class of in which
declarations admissible is that in which the state
of mind or motive with which any particular act Is
done is the subject Of inquiry Thus where the ques
ton is as to the motives of debtor in leaving his
house and going and remaining abroad, so Us TO
determine whether not act of bank
ruptcy has been committed his declarations
when leaving his house and while remaining
abroad. to mis- motives for leaving his house and
for remaining abroad are admissible in evidence.
such declarations. accompanyins the act clearly be-
date and explain the act and they derive degree OF
credit from the act. This. undoubtedly, is correct
statement of the legal doctrine, and il seems
pleey applicable to this case in the present point OF
view.
one Of the important questions at the trial was
whether the deceased had come into an agreement
with the defendant to accompany him to Camden
the night of the murders there was testimony show
ing the assent of Mr. Hunter to such agreement the
question for solution was ~ to the intention of the
deceased IN leaving hts home. whether his motive and
purpose to assent TO and execute such agree
mcnt such iuncturc with respect to intention and
conduct cannot distinguish from that of the bank
rupt in departing from his home, far the rules
OF evidence touching declarations concerned. and
IN my opinion this testimony ON this ground was also
admissible. &rA
FACTS PROVING HUNTERS Guur.
have already shown that have been led to the
result that all these declarations which were excepted
to hcarsays legitimate evidence in the cause
and have now to make the further remark that II
had arrived ut the opposite conclusion still should
not have felt Justified ON that account 10 vote In favor
of reversing the Judgment My reason is this that
am satisfied that the admission of this testimony
could not have hurt the defendant the trial OF
the and by force of the law of this state II Is
not enough for the purpose of overthrowing judg-
ment i'm a criminal ease that errors in law have
tered into the proceeding. And from careful ex-
animation in this case | am fully satisfied that all
the facts embodied in those disputed declarations ap-
pearei from indisputable testimony, that they