The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-02-12
WO0LFOLK'S RETRIAL.
THE SUPREME COURT RATHER
HARD ON JUDGE GUSTIN.


His Alleged Failure to Uphold the SUI
premacy of the Law enc of the Main
Points in Securing a New Trial for
the Accused-Ihe Other Points in
the Case.
ATLANTA. GA, Feb 1.-THE decision of
the supreme court to-day gives Tom WOOL
felix. who murdered eight people in Bib
county. another chance for his life. The
opinion is a lengthy one, covering thirty
pages of tvpe-writteu legal cap. 1t was
READ bv Justice Simmons. OF the twenty
four grounds in the motion for new trial
set forth in the bill Of exceptions the re-
versal of the court below Is based chiefly
on these three:
The court erred in permitting the witness
to testify that when hat was drawn from
the yell il was claimed to belong to a son
oT SiIss voolfolk Such testimony was
besr,av and ii egai, and the witness did not
state nor claim that the hat belonged TO the
boy.
The court erred in refusing on the ext
day after It was given 10 rule out the testi-
mony Of Davis that after the killing some
one stopped him, and said: Tel everybody
that the voolfolk family are all killed but
one who got away was Tom Voolfolk, and
he is the one who lied al. the rest he
motion to rule out was on the ground that
the testimony WAS illeg i, as it was only his
opinion.
TOWARDS TESTIMONY.
The court also erred in permitting How
ard Mrs. Wo0lfolk's father 10 testify in
ans er to the question what Mrs. W 0Oltolk
said TO him WHEN she was going home the
Sunday before the crime, and after ward
in refusing 20 rule out the testimony, How
ards testimony was that she said her
visit was 10 see me TO Know
what to do Her life was in
danger from Tom Voolfolk The way he
treated her she expected 70 be killed. "
Even diving declarations are not admiss-
able unless it y as proved that the per on
was IN arttculo plortes and Conscious or
death at the tine of making them
Referring 70 the dis ,urbance in the court
room during the trial, the court says a new
trial is granted with less reluctance because
Of the Interruptions and the threatening
cries from the audience during the opening
and concluding arguments by the state
counsel While the state presented athdavits
from every member of the jury that they
were uninfGeuced by these things, the court
bel that it was MT what effect the ap-
plause or threats did have, because tina j.
would lie difficult 10 de ermine, but what
effect they we're calculated to have.
DIFFICULT TO SAY.
On this point the court says: Can any
of US know how far cur minds are Infuenc i
BY the applause or excitement Of a crowd
which surrounds US. Can any Of u, say in
this court that this or that testimony
influenced our mindsf Cal any
of Us say that on the trial Of
one Of the most helm US crimes ever COM
Al -
plause # me crowd and fierce cries Of 'uang
him, hang him, hang him. from a number
OF the crowd, followed later by a repetition
Of the same cry from the lips Of OF The
most highly respected and esteemed citi-
zans f the community woII nave no
influence upon our mIndsf We are 50 con
stitutel that 1t IS impossible 10 say what
impression scenes Of this kind would make
upon Us unless we had determined before
hand that the person was guilty or limo
cent.
WHAT THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DONE
1--WE think tn court below SHOULD hav,
put the seal Of It's condemn alton upon tbs
conduct We thing the Judge should have
stoDped the argument of the St ite's cou lse
then and the e and asCertained the Eulty
parties. and Should have pgnis ed them IL
the extent Of tue law. He should have
taught EN- that the Ia ~ is supreme. thai
heinous the crime charged against him may
be- Is a serious and solemn thing
aid that the law would not -permi
n mob to interfere by applause o. threaten
ing and exciting cries. By SO doing he
would nave upheld the supremacy of the
law and would have shown to the jury thai
whatever verdict they may fiud the la 4
would protect them. There is no noblel
spectacle than that of judge anC
firm in q f. ~
of public sentiment and popular clamor &c
forw rd and 80 their duty and their Who'll,
duty The decision, especially this part o
it, is generally c)nsi tered here as a strong
reelection ON the presiding judge in the
court below.
OTHER DECISIONS.
Another important decision handed down
today was in the case OF the East Rom,
town council VS.. Cot ran, It. al, fioI
Fl vd TIE lower courts finding was af
firmrd The casa involved the title TO I
large quantity of valuab lands held by
the county 10y conveyance from d. B. Ham
ilton. Tie heirs of Hamilton set up the
claim on the ground that Hamilton had
usulruct intere I, and could not pass fet
simple title The claim was susfained.
Other decisions were handed down a.
follows:
Hardeman, solicitor general, vs. Nc
Manus, ordinary; from Bib. Reversed.
Swanson VS.. Calhoun from Houston.
Reversed.
Dunn vs. the State; from Douglass. Re
versed
Hill VS.. Callahan; from Floyd. Affirm
ed.
Bagley VS.. Kennedy; from Gwinett Re-
verse;
Bowen VS.. the State; from Barlow. Re
versed
REV. DIR. BARNETr's TRIP.
Rev. DR.. Z. H. Barnett, pastor of the
First Presbyterian chu ch left TO- ay o
leave from his church for a long vacation
abroad. Before leaving the g overnor ap
pointed him an no AIRY commissioner from
Georgia to 1ae Pa is exposition.