National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1880-06-08
THE HIRTH mURDERERS.
Bedford, Pinn and 0ueenan Denied
a NsW Trial.
The Judgment OF the Court Below Affirmed
An the Exceptions Overrulod Except
One, and Judge wylie Holds that
that One is Worthless
The Prisoners to he Re-
sentenced to Death.
The Hirtl, Murder Cn.nint the

bench the case of Joseph Novcrson, alias Babe
| Bedford, Sandy Pipn and Edward Queeuan,
| convicted of the murder of George Y. Hirth,
was disposed of. Colonel George b. Corkhill
for the government, and Messrs. Thomas +.
| Miller, G. Maurice Smith John +. Riley, Ran.
doph Coylc, IL. II. Wells, jr., aud Mr.. Hay
wood, counsel for the defendants were present,
also large attendance OF spectators. Tho case
came up ON fourteen exceptions taken to tho
ruling Of Justice Haguer on the trial in the
court below.
| Justice Wylie delivered the opinion of the
court. He said that GU the 5th of February
| the defendants were arrnigued and pleaded
not guilty. On the same day q copy
Of tho Indictment, list of witnesses and
jurors were served on CHI of them. On
| February 9th an additional notice of wit
nosscs was served On February 9th the court
met for the trial of the case, and eight jurors
were secured. On the 10th the jury was com.
| pleted sworn and the trial proceeded. These
| dates would have something to do with the
decision, aud at the risk OF being tedious he
should 20 over the bills perceptions serriatum.
| The first bill objected to the arraignment of
| the defendants because they had not received
two entire days notice before they were
called upon to plead, and had not been served
with a copy of the iudictmen aud list of wit.
ucsses aud jurors. His honor said that the act
of congress designating two entire days before
trial was the ouly law upon the subject. 1t
seemed by record that the same day The in
! diclmont was found they were arraignCd
and pleaded against their objection. The
case was not tried until the 10th.
! Tho question was whether or not after
arraignment the prisoners had u copy
of tho indictment and list Of the
witnesses and jurors two days before the trial
| began. As the list was served Oh the 9th in.
slant, it was plain that they had the copy two
entire days. By the statutes Of William, fol-
lowed by those of Ann, the English courts
construed the law to mean that copies must
be served two days before arraignment. II
such were the law in this country, then the
| prisoners were not served with copy at all;
hut tho statutes here differed considerably
from those of England. There was no error
10 the ruling Of the court in this instance.
The second bill objected to the defendants
being called upon to plead to a second indict.
mcnt until the ISSUES joined in the first were
disposed of. There was no error committed
in that ruling.
The third bill required the government to
elect on which count of the indictment the
government would proceed to trial. His honor
said that the government could frame an in.
dictmcnt in as many counts us they pleased, so
to set forth the facts rs fully as possible, and
were not compelled to select any particular
count on which to so to trial. This exception
was overruled.
The fourth bill was the most important in
the case, and should DO taksn in connection
with the fifth and sixth. This bill sets out
that OH the 9Th of February the prisoners had
been served with a long list of witnesses, aud
| on the 9th Of February q supplemental list of
three witnesses was served. Two of this list
were named William r. Spearo and William
Dangerfeld. AS to Speare and Dlngerfield
the question was whether or not the prisoners
wero served with a notice of them two full
days before the beginning of the trial.
The 9th of February was Friday,
and the law requires two entire DAYS
before trial. Tho defendants contend
that Saturday was Que day, and Sunday
could not be counted, being dies non, and there
fore they were not served two entire days. II
the trial was regarded as commencing on the
10th, when the jury was full, then there was
no doubt of their having had Two entire days.
| The law took no account of Sunday upon
many subjects, and unless it does it cannot be
noticed and must be counted. The Lords day
is ono upon which the courts will not sit, but
! all other business may be done, unless pro.
hibited by statute. Another question arises
in the case OF DR.. Pctts. On February 49,
and after the trial had been going on for six
days, n third notice was given to the defend.
ants of witnesses to be called, including the
names of Speare, Danger field and DIR. Pettis
The latter was new witness, of whom
no notice had been given before the
trial. The government made affidavit to the
importance of the testimony, and in order tc
allow it to be received the court was adjourned
for three days. Their opinion as regards the
notice of DIR. Pettis was that it was invalid, u!
two days notice was not given before The
trial commenced AS to Sp arc and Danger
field the notice was sufficient. As to pe,t
nothing was shown. The bill sets forth tina
, he was sworn, but what did he swear to? l
might have been for the defense. Witnesse
have been frequently called for the govern
a, ln fta .b.,,
the stand. The statute states that it shall b.
evidence in support Of tho indictment 0
which notice shall be given.
Now the defendants have neglected TO pre-
sent that testimony in the record, and there
is nothing on the face of the exceptions b,
which the court can see that the evidence wa
Ofauy account whatever, that it WAS nateria
to the issue or injurious to the defendants
consequently the court cannot take any motto
of 1t, and there is no ground for reversal. Il
regard TO admitting the testimony Of William
, Duhey Of heuriug Qucenan mako certai
1 threats against Hirth the summer before II
was killed. the court held that no error wa
committed. Likewise in the admission of thu
. testimony Of Washington BrOXtOn and jaime
D Croggan, corroboratiug the story Of Johusto
, told by him to them after the murder and be
; fore testfying in court. The same priucipl
!, applied to the eighth bill in regard to til
a testimony of Brown proposed to be impeache
S by that OF Crug
There was no error in admitting the state
ment Of Quelnan that no turned states ey
dencc against man named Broadus whou 0
b trial foI stealing an oyercoat. The tenth b
related to the admission as a witness OF Water
man +. Baglcy. On the list served the nam
appeared MS William p. Bugley. He swor,
but to what the court had not been enlight
enod aud therefore n'w trial could not b
granted upon that exception. In the elcyent
bill, on the cross, examination Of William
Brown as to his attempts to bribe Craig, til
court held the questions irregular, and the dc
= fenso concluded by the answers There wa
y no error in the ruling Of the twelfth bill whGl
= tho court overruled the offer Of the dofens
to show by the witness Cassel what Bedlor
said and did IN the drug store while the doa
b man lay there.
No error was committed in permitting d.
tective Acton to contradict Sarah Turner VIII
/ ~ was put on the stand to prove an alibi, an
3 the thirteenth exception was oyeuuled. Til
Z last bill was in relation to the charge of I'll
= court to the jury, and his honor held that n
: error had been committed in that respeG
g His honor said that some further exception
y had been taken By the counsel for Pun in r.
g gard 10 the accepting OF certain jurors. II
q would not speak for the court, but would sa