The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-01
HIS NECK Is SAVED.
Friedrich's Crime Declared See
ond Degree Murder.
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT.
Verdict Not Warranted By Evidence
Further Appeal Likely - Fried
rich Would Rather Hang.


ment Of the superior court in the case Of
Albert Friedrich, convicted Of murder IL
the first degree for the killing OF Julius
Scherbring. and ordering that Judgment
of guilty OF murder in the second degree
be entered. The crime Of which Friedrich
was charged and twice convicted was the
shooting OF scherbring in July, 1881.
at night, on the Grant street bridge.
He was convicted in the territorial
court and the case was appealed, but
owing TO the death Of the judge who tried
the case, the record was not certified 70
the upper court, and 1t was not until last
summer that it was heard on appeal. A
new trial was then granted and Friedrich
was again convicted before Judge Humes.
Of the superior court. A second appeal
was then taken to the supreme court and
resulted as above stated. The substance
Of the opinion Of the supreme court ap-
pears in the following specia. dispatch:
OLYMPIA, April 80 -fspscisL 1.-The supreme
court today ordered that the judgment Of death
rendered In the case Of the stgts vs.. A4h-Tt
Friedrich be set aside and vacated, but that the
verdict Of the jury stand and that the cause be
refnended to the superior court Of King county.
with instructions to enter 9 new judgment OF
murder ia the second degree sgalnst the de-
PENDANT
In its decision the court holds that the pre-
sentiment Of e new indicinnei after new trial
had been grated Sss proper. IL sustains The
lower court on the rulings 20 which exceptions
were taken and says;
From the evidence produced to them, we
thlnk the jury were warranted in finding
that Friedrich fred the shot which re-
there been any suggestion Of motive. plan
or dezbsTa.ioa ia the e4se might
In Difference 70 the admitted province oil tbs
jury. BE- constrained 10 sustain It's verdict Is
rendered, bu; the law commits 20 this court the
power TO affirm. reyerss or modify any 5Udg-
Iaent appealed IRON, and 10 direct the proper
Judgment 70 De entered, and In thus committing
power u also impcsss the duty 10 exercise il
conseientsoIsiy as the fsess inay srpeGr. In
this eAse,. when We have said that Il y
re Gya did ,bs ssao,nv d0 and
fed with design of escaping from his guilty
knowledge TIA he had Committed CT. ne. ali
Is said that can re said OF the stats case
yealed BY the evidence. IL 10 q casa sinzularly
without the preot Of extrinae circumstances
ien5ing 70 show what coad have been the IN
doeemen. in bis mind 10 shcos down
called him his best friend. Going
beyond the pale OF legitimate evidence in the
case even. and taking scherbrings declaration
that he felt hand in his pocket. yet there j.
lot word to show that he was robbed or los.
say money. papers or other yainabies. Then,
1gain, seherbriags mysterious retiesuce and
when, If the states theory be accepted,
IL Was a tLse OF naereiless assassination,
makes IL difficult of belief that such was
really the crime 7 ne feeling Ia irresistible
that after two trials Of the appellant the whole
Truth Of the case has no; been made TO appear.
There may have been a quarrel, with, no one
Knows what attendant circumstances OF az
erosion o. proFocssio1 upon one SIDE or the
othsf The homicide, ~ proven. stands as an
unlawful killing With deadly weapon, with no
circumstance proven By the state the
tfff t<z~ ~
CT the weapon malice il implied, and the corE-
mon law crime OF murder Is complete But the
Treasure Of murder IN the first degree is not
Filed up II is clear that 10 authorize conv;e-
tioa OF murder in the 5tst degree the jury must
have before them in the case, whether
produeed By the state or defense. facts
doubt that The murder ives committed lpur-
possly AID Of deliberate and preueditatei ms
lice OF such .acts. as we view the evidence
for the second time and after many pcrusGls, we
find nothing The distinction between murder
Ia The first and second degree IL fine one, and
i u not 10 - wondered al that juries sometimes
taii 70 appreciate il. bat the Jaw makes /. and
Law Is the master Of US all
w. y. Tyler, of the Law firm of Tyler,
Hays & Tyler, who have acted as Fried
rieh's attorneys during and since his third
trial, was seen last night By a Posr-IsTEL-
hTGrxcER reporter and expressed his sur
prise at the action OF the supreme court.
lie said:
isdoes no: seem 20 me that the supreme court,
seeorcirE 70 the dispatches. has rrss.d upon
the questions Of law subini ted. On tie motion
Tor new . sal or upon the sppssL FURTHERMORE,
81 went hs.old It's power In se-t ug aside the
Judgment Of murder In the dEst iesree aad
ordering one of murder in the second degree
entcref hold that this court ha. no power in
ceiHins casss TO amend the judgment; of the
lower court IN this Dannor: IL mast either re.
VS. ayaw ruSa -. a.
OF guilty Of murder in the first de-
rree has bes1 set aside and Friedrich
cannot again be tired on thai chg-ga main
tain also that he could not be tried on new in
dicinept charging murder In the seeond de-
gree, because be has already bssn in jeopardy
shall 81 once move f,r rel caring OF the case
before The supreme cog;s, and II IL Is not
granted IL may be nee.ssAv 10 go up 70 the su-
preme court of iae Unissd StA.es
James Hamilton Lewis who was Fried
rich's attorney At the time of his first APP
peal 10 the supreme court and is therefore
conyersant with the case, said last night to
PosT-ISrELLIsEScER reporter.
The supsene coGr; has a pssSe1eat in its
seton u amending the iuds'nen of the lower
court ia is OWE ASTON .! two Yeas Ago in the
csse o. the State vs. BlAntou which was
brought up from Walls wAlla eot.aty In that
cas- the srccsed was convicted OF murder in
tne frst dsgrss and the judgment OF the su.
pefior court was set ssioe had ono Of man.
slaughter entered. The sane th4ac has also
been done in California in the case OF the state
Va Goldenson.
Friedrich was very sullen when he was
seen at the county jail last night by a
Posr-ISTELIfeENcERr reporter He had re-
tired, and when the iailer informed him
that visitor was present he rolled over in
his bunk and refused 10 talk, and aT,-
peared determined not to be talked
60, for he covered up his head in
his blankets. When he vas told of the
supreme courts decision. he uncovered
his head, and, propping himself up on his
elbows, emphaiically said:
ITS mistake; they can't render q de-
cision like that"
"Weli, they did it. anyway"
Z" II can't be. They have either set me
free or they have sustained the decision OF
the court which found me guilty"
1.-The dispatch from Olympia containing
the information has been confirmed. and
that is certainly the way the csse was de-
cided"
It's not true. II such a thing can be
true il only Shows that the supreme court
was afraid TO do its duty Ii I'm guilty
of the charge preferred against me there IS
no halfway business about it If the
supreme court has rendered such q de-
cision II shows that it does not believe
me guilty. but was either afraid TO render
aproper verdict and reverse the decision
Of the lower court or. merely because OF
prejudice. declined TO do me justice. The
present decision, if true, is worse than
finding me suilty, for 1 would rather end
nay days quick than spend the remainder
OF my life in the penitentisry."