New-York tribune., 1892-01-01
A NEW TRIAL FOR JAMES BARKER.
ANOTHER CHANCE FOR THE BRUTAL BULLY TO
T..CAPE PUNISHMENT.

ANOTHER CHANCE FOR THp BRUTAL BULLY TO
ESCAPE PUNISHMENT.
The General Torn OF the Supreme Court HANDED
down opinion yesterday reversing the conviction Of
James Barker for assault and ordering a new trial
The alleged assault committed on September 10,
1880, on James Herman. in an Erhtlave barroom.
The opinion is written by Presiding Justice Ven runt
and cOnclirred In by Justices Barrett anc Patterson.
Justice Van Brunt says that according TO the record
OF the trial there is little ground for the contention
Of the defendants attorney that the remarks OF the
District Attorney 10 the Jury improper and were
not confined TO comments the evidence. There were
few such remarks, however, but" continues the
opinion, "in view OF the weight OF the evidence in
favor Of the defendant and the character OF the verdict
n would appear that some influence other than that
which would properly result from consideration OF
the evidence determined the verdict. THIS VIII ap
near from a brief consideration OF the main features
OF the and Of the fact that the complainant stands
absolutely uncooboated In respect 10 every material
point in the and pointediy ccntradctcd by the
only witness to the assault examined on ms behalf III
respect to one OF its prominent features After re-
viewing the evidence the opinion closes: "lf the DO
fendant guilty at all he wa' guN
OF an unjustlabe assault: resulting In grevous
bodily harm, and the rendition OF vcr,'ct
for lesser offence seems under the evidence In TINS
case to indicate either msconccpton Of that evidence
by the jury or prejudice against the defendant
Under such circumstances justice would to require
new trial In order that the guilt or Innocence OF
the defendant may be determined upon evidence ana
not upon suggestion"
Barkcr's crime was committed on september IL,
1882 In an Eighth ave. barrOOm he attacked an m
ofen.,ve Young laborer named James Herman Barker,
who Is "a big heavy man. struck and Kicked the young
man most numerically, apparently under no provo
c,tjon except that Herman was not q member Of
Tammeny Hall and said something against that or
yanizatton Herman was at the point OF death for
timc FROM his iaurcs and was MANNED for lie by
than The delays in Ea:kers case were numerous,
and were cxplanabe only By the fact that he was a
Leading Tsmmany Hall in his district For some
time the ey-Aldernan was not even arrested Aets-
t,op I'm the new spaper however finally led to Bark
er,s indictment on February IS, 1890. in May fol-
lowing he was tried and convlctcd OF assault IN the
third degree before Judge Cowng IN General Sessions
ENORMOUS pressure was brought to bear on Judge
Coxlng to have the sentence light as possible Thc
nu,iebm.nt was fixed at Imprisonment In the pchi-
,s,,ary for four months and fine OF $500
aorler's counsel took appeal to the Gencrai
Torn, and then there was another long delay. The
.oner was rcleaseG on bail, and not unu harch "a
,.t was the case and exception" settled ana signed
t.r the Judge. Then there was more hicuNiH'
ihe Disrict Attorney served n0uce on bark
r,S cn,nseI tnat lie would move Tor dsnssa OF tne
e en,c.i ON the ground Of lack OF prosecution. Vl
NJ cory OF the Was at lnst serVeo ON th;
m;ret r; Attorney and on the next day the ucneiai
irarn denied Mr.. Ncoll's motion. Oh June ~ INC
case was submitted without oral argument