Morning journal and courier., 1892-01-30
NLuO D1 IlLlUunl U From All Quarters. A CHANGE FOR HIS LIFE. Stay of Proceedings in the
 Graves Case. MAJOR MCKINLEY SERIOUSLY ILL. An Interesting Budget of
 Foreign News. SEVERAL EkTkl RkII RnAn WREeYe
SEVERAL FATAL RAILROAD WREekS.
The Yale Eleven HOnOred
 at Boston.
GRAVES GETS A CHANGE.

| The Supreme Court Grants a Stay o1 ProceedtnRs-Dr. Graves will be Re. leased on Bail - What Ex.Dfstrfct Attorney Stevens of Denver Says. DENVER, Jan. 29.-The supreme court
 this morning granted supersedeas in the Graves case. Graves will be released on bail.
 The writ presented by Dr. Graves law yers took exception to Judge Rising's in- struction to the jury in the lower court, claiming that the judge erred in instruct ing the jury that they should bring in a verdict of guilty if they had reasonable basis for thinking the doctor had sent the poisoned bottle to Mrs. Barnaby; that it was not necessary for every link in the circumstantial evidence to be per feet in order to bring a conviction. They also took exception to the testimony of were allowed to go out of their way to testify against the doctor.
 The doctor has been notified by telegraph of his good luck in occurring @ stay of pro- ceedings. This will do away with placing the death watch over him as would have been done next Sunday night had not the supersedeas been granted.
 Owing to the crowded condition of the docket it may be two or three years before the case will be reached.
 PROVIDENCE, R. l., Jan. 29.-Ex-District Attorney Isaac N. Stevens of Denver, Col, who prosecuted Dr. T. Thatcher Graves, for the murder of Mrs. Barnaby on behalf of the state of Colorado arrived in this city this evening and went to the Narragansett hotel. His wife accompanied him. MT. Stevens was called on this evening, and in reply to questi ms as to whether Dr. Graves would be allowed on bail or whether he thought there would be a reversal of judgment. He said the statement as to bail was Gall bosh" as it was contrary to the statutes of Colorado. is not the slightest danger of the supreme court reversing the judgment on it's merits. That case was tried before one of the ablest judges in the west, who had for several years occupied 8 position on our supreme court commission, and every doubtful question during the entire trial was resolved to favor of the defend ant. The jury was the best which ever sat in the state of Colorado. I can safely say that, think. Now let me tell you some thing that may interest the public little more. Our supreme court is composed of most excellent and able judges. The re- suit of new trial in this case would be the absolute discharge of the defend ant. It would be Impossible to ever prosecute the case again. The witnesses all live beyond the jurisdiction of our courts and it was with the greatest diff culty and at very heavy expense that their attendance was secured at the last trial. It would be impossible to get them a second time to leave their business to volunteer to attend the trial, and they would have to volunteer, as we have no means of forcing their attendance. Mir. Conrad informs me that he thinks that himself and family have fully discharged their duty to the he will never again interest himself in the matter if second trial is ordered"