The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-07-04
SHALL HERE SENT BACK?
A QUESTION OF ExTRADITIoN BE-
FORE JUSTICE LAMAR.
A Prussian Accusdd of Murder-Facts
Upon Which the German Government
Roiies--The Evidence Held To Be In
sufficient for Hxhhdition.
Special Dispatch TO ThelAppcsl.


Special Dispatch TO The Appeal.
JACKSON, Miss, July Sat II o'clock
this morning Justice Lamar, OF the United
States supreme court proceeded to hear, in
the United States courtroom, the case ex
parte Martin Ludwig Kisch, alias Rischky
or Rischkec, from Prussia, who was arrest
cd in Texas short time ago upon a war;
rant OF extradition under the treaty OF
1852, and was ordered to be held for ex-
tradition to Prussia by Judge Sabin, Judge
OF the United States court OF the eastern
district OF Texas. After the investigation
and decision by Judge Sabip, the relator
sued out writ OF babeas corpus, which
was made returnable before Justice La
mar. at this place, on the I'd instant The
crime for which bis extradition is asked is
the alleged murder and robbey OF one
Schmalinski in Prussia in 1883, the motive
OF which is supposed and charged to have
been the obtaining OF large amount OF
money in possession OF the deceased. The
relator claims that the testimony on which
he was held by Judge sabin, totally fails to
show his criminality; but there must be
shown evidence strong enough to convict
before he can be cxtradited. The relator
Is represented by Messrs. Burns Il Burns,
attorneys, OF Galveston, Texas. Messrs.
Nugent q Melville, of this place prose-
cute for the German government. The
testimony adduced against the relator IL in
the shape OF dispositions in the German
language taken in Prussia, which were
translated in Texas for tho investigation
before Judge Sabin. The testimony il
principally OF eircumstantial character
against tho relator. Among other things
II shows that the relator and the deceased
had mills near each other and they were
on intimate terms; that deceased prior 10
April %, 1883, was an industrious and en-
torprising miller, and at times thrifty, and
enjoyed the confidence OF those with
whom he dealt TO largo extent; but In
the spring OF that year Inc became very
much embarrassed and availed himself Of
the confidence he enjoyed TO obtain
moneys, ~ alleged, by iorgerics and also
by converting his available assets into
money, aud had in hand from a 600 10
5000, but rs he supposed his creditors
would likely soon come upon him with
writs aud the supposed forveries might
como to light, he took the further sep OF
transferring all his personal property 20
tho rcln,or aud delivered them 10 him ut
his house oil the 22,i Of April; that relator
was acquainted with the financial oond.
ton and embarrassment OF the deceased
aud aided him tbcrcin; that deceased was
last seen with rclatdr on the night OF the
2jd OF April. 1885, that rclaior accounted
for his absence by telling some parties that
hc had gone 10 Poland and others that he
had gone to America; that rclator had the
money OF the lecsased In satchel,
which has ncvet va been found; that
rclaior was seen w!.tJ considerable pile
Of money soon iafief the disappearance
Of the deceased; that'rclator had arranged
10 come 30 America a short time previous
10 the killing and suddenly left soon after
tho killing, when II was not generally
known that he was coming that lac came
10 the United States, settling in Texas and
purchasing land fer which he paid 500 in
cash; that the body Of the deceased was
not found until January. 1884, when IL was
discovered In u woods near Lis mill end
was identified. There were other circum-
stances Of a damaging character pointing
10 the guilt OF the rclator. Tho position OF
his counsel, Mcssrs. Burns X Burns, II,
iirt, that the quantum OF evidence neces-
sary for cxtradition in this case Is not such
m would be necessary for conviction upon
n final trial; second, that " this be not NO,
and u should be held that prima iacic
case OF guilt bc sufficient for cxtradition,
then tho rela,or must he discharged, be-
cause the testimony fails Of making ont n
prima iscie case against him, especially
~ mere prima iacio case Ia
not sufficient 20 rcbut the pro-
sumption OF innoccnse; third and finally,
that there Ia absolutely In this record no
legal and competent evidence Of guilt
against the rclator. The attorneys insist
that the evidence In the case points To the
suicide Of the dcccnscd, but u he was muir.
dcrcd there In no LEGAL or competent tcsti-
mony whatever 10 convict tho rclaior with
the homicide. Counsel for the prosecution
claim that this court cannot Try the case
upon the evidence that u has no power
10 review the action of Judge Sabin; that
u has no appellate jurisdiction In the case.
nor can u try the earnc dc noyo that the
only appeal that lies from Judge Sabin's
decision IA TO the President Of the United
States, who alone ran review the evidence.