Telegram-herald., 1890-01-12
WANT A NEW TRIAL.
yns oronla Conwsoss Tnaas rhey
DaSnf Get . Far De&
rgEY PErITms pg 4 REEElsI,C
A Lszsssy EssAz-sst rllss - hAs" Az
tor1sys !. Nslss Alleges ESrsfs -
a. C0art a. sAs Esesst frA~i
AFs r4uy Essasssa


A1fGASA al Al $50
aftsruOon Attorneys 4 \. hlag Daniel
Douzhes snd ~ ; Forrest lied VIII
ths c!srk of ths crimiEsl court > motlon
for = uew triAl IN tbe e&Ses q Ian
Coughiin. Martin Burke. P OSalllTsn
and JOAN kunza convicted % ths muF-
der OF Dr Cronin. The mouon wa nled
II accordance Nth The oFaer q 'acge
Mcconnell before whom The Arguments
viii bs made Monday.
The motioH IS very long IL covers
eleven type@rltteh pages ana assigns
thirty-p nine czllsss of error IA the rulings
Of Judge McCoEnsli during she tfial
Of she case. These grounds ci a.
legged error en- brace every poins
contested by the attorneys for the es-
fense. and range from al obfcuen DO
The courts overriding the notion 10
quash the indictments ap TO the as
sertion that he defense hes. since the
trial, discovered new evl1snce "hich
entities them to neE tria.
The hrst error alleged Is that The
court erred in overFuling the motion 70
quash tie indictment made on behalf
of each % the defendants The denial
Of CoGghlins motion FOR separate trial
Is n sde the basis % four Of the alleged
errors, there being separate count for
each OF The defendants.
The refusal Of the court 20 permit the
/ defense 10 show that Messrs. Mills,
I Ingham and Hynes were employed in the
I prosecution BY nrivate parties who were
actusted by improper motives is alleged
20 have been pre- Judicial 20 the defend
ants The courts allowing these three
/ lawyers 70 assist in the prosecution ls
/ said 70 be an error Mr.. Hynes is made
q subject Of special count in the no
ton, in which be is said TO have been
moved by spirit Of personal hostility
( towards Coughlin. Burke and O'Sulli-
I van, and was not ST 10 act "a prosecut-
/ ing attorney.
4 The overruling Of the challenge for
cause, preferred by the defendants 70 a
/ long list OF veniremen whose names are
/ given la the motion, is further alleged
I TO be error II IS set forth in three
grounds OF the motion that the court
erred in refusing to permit proper ques-
tions to be put to veniremen by the de-
I fense.
1t is claimed there was error in the
I court allowing George l.. Corke, ". &.
North, C. T. Marlor, F. J. Bontecou and
B. +. Clark TO serve on the jury against
| the objection on behalf of Burke.
| Coughlin, 0'Sulliyan and Kunze, whose
I peremptory challenges had been ex-
hausted when these gentlemen were ex-
I 41I {r,~
Judge Lengenecker's opening state
ment to the jury is cited as error and
characterized as improper and illegal
and prejudical TO the rights OF
the defendants. It is also alleged
/ 20 have been error in the case for
the failure OF the court 10 enforce the
rule excluding witnesses for the State
from the courtroom during the trial.
1t is alleged that improper evidence
was permitted by the court TO be offered
by the State, and that proper evidence
on behalf OF defense was excluded.
II is charged as error that the prosecu-
! ton was permitted 20 introduce evidence
and exhibit TO the jury the clothing, in
struments and hair OF DR.. Cronin, the
false teeth, the trunk and all the ma
terial evidence in the case. The intro
| duction of Dr. Cronin's knives after the
State had closed it's case is said to have
been in error. Objection is made to
number of the instructions given
10 the jury by the court. The
verdict Is pronounced as contrary
TO law and not justified By the evil
/ dence, and finally it is said that "the de
| fendants and each OF them have dis
/ covered evidence which entities them
| 20 \ new trial" What this new evi-
dence is the attorneys for the defense
will not disclose till they read the afi-
davits on the matter, which they will
read in court Monday morning.