Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-01-22
THE ABUSE JUSTICE.
Lawyer Vvarfel's Paper Has il Say

Lawyer Warfel's Paper Has IL Say.
New Era.
a correspondent wants to know what
the plea of autrefois acquit, entered by the
defense in the Snyder case, by which the
defendant escaped Justice, means anyhow:
AIT, efois dcqui simply means that when
the district attorney and his acting deputy
in October, 1878, took verdict of not
guilty in the Snyder liquor case, without
having previously examined the witnesses
on whose testimony the indictment had
been found, for the purpose of
screening "the best workers in the
ward" thereby prostituting the machinery
of justice to the basest of purposes, they
so thoroughly salted the case away, that
under the plea of autrefois acquit the
defendant could not be convicted of
the original oflense, the evidence
of which by the admission of this
plea was ruled out. Had a nol pros.
merely been entered the proceedings could
have been reviewed and reOpened. Hence
the precautiOn to take Il verdict of not
guilty, to make sure that not only the
best workers of the ward," but also the
fellows who profited by their labOrs, should
be saved from the legal consequences of
their lawlessness and official malfeasance.
Autrefois acqut is not a ''primeval law, J"
but, in this case, it was certainly a prime
evil law, to which court and jury "bowed
submissively, " because it is the law. And
thus was concluded the work begun by
District Attorney Eshleman and Hay
Brown in October, 1878, in behalf of ''the
best workers of the ward and those for
whom they labored so efficiently in June
of that year.
How 1t Availed.
After the defense had closed their case
the court asked District Attorney Eshle-
man whether it would not be competent
for him to call witnesses in rebuttal to
show that the witnesses Oh whose testi-
mony the indictment had been found in
August, 1878, and on which verdict of
not guilty was taken in October, had
not been examined under oath before
that rcrdict acas taken. Here was Il
grand opportunity for the district
attorney to show that the very foun-
dation Oh which the New Era based
it's charge was not true. But instead of
accepting the kind offer of the court, tho
district attorney argued that the plea of
autrefois acquit could not avail the defend
ant, because he had not shown that he had
previously uCCH pistCcu Ill JCcptluy. VI
course, this was as bad law as it was in bad
taste for one who had made flourish of
seeking '' vinticatiOn' in "every county
in the state" Mr.. Reynolds was quick to
take advantage of it to show that the
plea of previous acquittal was valid,
and the authorities being on his side, the
court had so to rule. But the district at
torney could have availed himself of the
generous offer of the court to vindicate
himself, and Mr.. Reynolds could have con-
sented to it without prejudice to his eli
ent, as the relevancy of that testimony
could have heen argued after the vindi-
cation as we'll as before, and ruled out
by the court before the case was given to
the jury. This course was due alike to the
court, to Messrs. Brown and Eshleman,
and above all to the cause of public JUS
ticc.