The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-03-04
THE FRIEDRICH CASE
Prosecuting Attorney Miller's
Argument on Appeal.
MR.. LEWIS ENDLESS DELAYS.
An Answer 70 the Rhetorical Plea Of
the Mnrderer's CounssI-ractj
and Fictions Compared.

The argument of Prosecuting Attorney
Jonn +. Miller before the supreme court
N the appeal Of Albert Friedrich against
tne sentence Of death pronounced on him
Ior the murder Of Julius Scherbring, has
been printed and laid before the court and
attorneys In the case. In the course of it,
Mr.. Miller good-naturedly pokes fun at
the high-fown phrases Of James Hamilton
Lewis, the attorney for Friedrich. He
says:
II Ill the eases, thus sswan and wasted" have
peen marked with such total disregard and re-
plsaistion ct every law affecting appeals, every
rule OF practice OF this honorable court, as has
sne case OF the State W. Friedrich, now at bar,
no wonder, then, say, ct the result. The duty
o. counsel to his client Is known alike to bench
e enc ,osr; human life weighing the balance that
grave hidden behind but Z misty veil--yet with
AL this, counsel has persistently, though hope
not willfully, dsregarded every rule OF practice,
every sentence OF the law.
He accuses Mr.. Lewis OF neglecting his
chent's case and then seeking delay to
make up for his neglect, and says:
II councils daily ministrations at the bar, in
tne rush Of the busy mart, II to save some pccu-
NOUS client a few paltry dollars, he has haz-
aroeo the lie OF this defendant, we desire to say
peafance from an obliging and courteous public
prosecutor has never before been treated with
more lnolnerencc, patience never before moro
exhausted, and never In the history of this or
any other state has criminal almost in the
very presence Of death, been treated with such
uniform and bountiful mercy Is has Albert
fnedfich, the prisoner At the bar.
He argues that the indictment is suffi-
cient, serves every purpose, indeed sur
passes the indictment At common law.
eliminates the horde Of technicalities that
.subserve no other mission than aiding
the prisoner to escape" He contends that
the defendant, having exhausted all other
means OF escape, now brings forward, as a
last resort, the claim that the indictment
was insufficient and he was not fully APP
prised aud informed of the charge he was
to meet. Hequotes authorities in support
Of the omission from the indictment OF anv
statementaof the manner and means by
which the homicide was committed, as
was required by the old common law, and
contends that the word "kiiled' is suffi-
Gent. He quotes the case of the State VS..
Blanton, tried before the supreme court,
in support of his contention, and con-
tinues:
The indictment is sufficient, it conforms to the
the person charged, aud all the circumstances
necessary to constitute crime. The ruling,of
this honorable court in the above case cited for
bids further argument
In regard to the instructions of the
characterized as monstrous. Mr.. Miller
calls attention to several omissions from
the original text in that gentleman's pre-
tended quotation of the passages which he
severely condemned. He denounces this
garbling Of the instructions and declares
his readiness to abide by the Instructions
as given by the Judge. As to the refused
instructions he defends the action of court
in the matter and claims that some of the
instructions, as offered by counsel fo7the
defense, were given almost literally by the
court.
In reply to Mr. Lewis allegation that
the court erred in Overruling defendants
motion for q new trial on the ground of
the newly-discovered evidence Of Joseph
Jandos, he says:
The evidence alleged to have been newly dis
covered was 4t hand during the trial, the ac-
cused, Friedrich, and the witness, Jandos, be-
Vefsed freely during the trial at the terms Of re-
cess of the court. We respectfully call the at
tention Of this court to the affidavit of Joseph
Jandos, filed as part Of the record at our re-
quest
He asks counsel to keep within the
record and enters blunt denial of that
eloquent gentleman's references to "a mob
bowling for the prisoners blood" He
disposes of Mr.. Lewis reference to militia
companies standing guard in expectancy
of riot by stating that no militia companies
were called out in the Friedrich case, but
that two years after judgment had been
rendered in this case man was arrested
for assaulting child and that Judge Han
ford. fearing . riot, privately requested a
captain of militia to detail four or iive men
to duty at the Jail.
The argument closes with apologies for
the haste with which it has been pre-
uared