The morning call., 1892-07-06
A NEW TRIAL.
Judge Murphy Gives Sidney Bell
Another Chance.
A Long Decision Regarding the Matter Rem.
dered by the Court-Bell's Friends
Scored Severely.

clslon IN TIE case OF oldney Bell, convicted
of the murder OF Samuel Jacobson on Au-
gust 16. 1890, whereby he granted the de-
fendants motion for a new trial The
decision was long one. but 1t was very in
teresting considering the various phases of
the celebrated case. which is, as the Judge
said in his decision, unique one among
criminal actions.
In referring to the first trial OF Bell
Judge Murphy says that the theory OF the
prosecution was that jacobson was muir
dered by two footpsds on the corner of
California and Webster streets after aliyht-
ing from car. 1t was contended that Bell
was one OF the footpads and was the one
who fired the fatal shot because Jacobson
declined tD be garr0ted. The theory of the
defense was that Bell was not present when
jacobson was shot, and further that the de-
ceased, Instead OF receiving his wound at
the corner. rtcrived ii in his house under
peculiar circumstances of which there were
no proof. Bell was convicted of murder in
the fret degree April 90 1891.
NEW EVIDENCE CLAIMED.
A motion for new trial was made on the
ground of newly discovered evidence peril
nent to the issue involved and which could
not have been produced at the trial
by reason Of the unsettled condition of the
law involving the question as to the power
OF the court 10 pronounce Judgment and to
1x the place OF execution OF Judgment, which
was involved in the case and theE pending
before the Supreme Court in the McNulty
case, the hearing of the new trial motion was
continued until last January.
The court. in its opinion, then refers to the
testimony of Charles Schmidt aud Edward
w. Campbell at the trial OF Bell, wherein the
former testified that after the murder he oc-
cupied room with Bell and that the latter
confessed To him that he had murdered ia
cobSon. Campbell. as is well known, stated
that he WAS Bells companion that night and
saw him kill jacobson. Judge Murphy adds
that under cr0sS-eXamnatiOn these wit
nesses could not be broken down, and their
testimony was very effective in convincing
the jury that Bell was guilty
There were only Two exceptions the court
says, taken during the trial which were pre-
sented on the motion for new trial. So
lar as these are concerned the court is salts
fed that no error was committed The ex-
ception as to the charge of the court on the
question of confederation of accompices, if
questionable at all. was more favorable to
the defendant than he was entitled TO. That
furnishes no ground for new trial as far
as the charge OF the court is concerned and
It's acton. Had the case stood at the argu-
meut OF a motion for a new trial as il did at
the time OF the rendering of verdict by q
jury there could be 40 grounds for granting
new trial, for the reason that the case, as
presented 10 the jury, fully warranted and
o. NJ.
BELLS sCHEMING RELATIVES.
The court then goes on to say that, pend
ing the motion for u new trial. systematic
scheme was conc0cted and sought 10 be
worked out by the friends of the defendant
aud his family to intimidate the court and
its officers by attacks; also to influence
portion of the press in the interest of the
defendant, to create feeling in favor of the
defendant at the expense of the court and
the administration of justice.
Judge Murphy then proceeded to criticize
very haFshly the action of Row. I. Chalmers
Eastnn in behalf of Bell Tie reverend
gentleman, the court SAYS, appeared at his
chambers and represented that he was al
tending To the spiritual welfare OF Bell and
he wanted as much time As possible for his
ministrations before judgment was pro-
nouneed by the court, This time, Judge
Murphy saws, he was willing 10 grant as
humane act and also because of the un-
settled condition Of the law. Several ex-
tensions Of time were granted az Mr.
Easlop's request
Soon after the court was informed by
District Attorney Barnes that Information
had been conveyed to him by Attorney Kip
and hir. Easton as to the testimony of
Schmidt. The court was asked To nvesti-
gate the same, and did so. When S hmdt
was called aud sworn he declared that no
one had held inducements or promises out
to him TO testify as he did /: that he had
done so of his own free will in order to see
If he could not get free of some criminal
charges which were pending against him;
also that his evidence that Bell had made q
confession to him about killing jacobson was
not true in any respect. lie also added that
the only intimation that he ever gave of the
falsily of his evidence 10 Kip or Easton was
when he expressed his sympathy with Bell,
and also that he had stated 10 them that
he would make different statement If he
was taken before the Judge. Schmidt also
denied the truth of his ffidavit made before
Judge Levy April 10, 1891, as to all matters
connecting him with the Bell murder He
alsd reiterated that no inducements had been
held out TO him TO make a recantaton of
his testimony.
MR.. EAsToN CESsURED.
Yet in the face of this. the decision saws.
KIP, who was Schmidt's attorney, and who
defended him in his criminal charges,
swears that Mr.. Easton informed Schmidt
before his reeaDtation that Bells friends
Ia st.s ri