Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-11-02
DEMAND A NEW TRIAL
On the Ground That Cook Hall Was
an Incompetent Witness.
BARRED BY HIS CONVICTION.
Arguments for Rehearing of Postoffce
Burglary Cases.
SUITS HEARD IN THE SUPREME COURT

A motion for a new trial in the case OF
Thomas Hughes and others charged with
robbing several postofices throughout the
Northern counties of the State was argued
before Judge Burlington yesterday after
noon. Mr.. W. J. Breene appeared in be-
half of the defendants, while United States
District Attorney Lyon represented the
Government in opposing the motion. The
argument hinged on the competency or in
competency of Cook Hall as witness. Mr..
Breene contended that the rules regulating
the competency of witnesses under the COM
mon law as it existed in Pennsylvania in
1889 is the rule in the criminal branch of
the United States Court, that the convic-
tion of murder under the common law dis
qualified man as witness in the Federal
courts, and that therefore Hall was not a
competent witness in this case.
THE controlling proposition or question
involved in this case" said Dir Breene,
may be stated thus: Was a person who
had been convicted for murder, and who
had served out his sentence, competent
witness in criminal case under the law of
Pennsylvania prior to 1889? AS early as
the passage of the Judiciary act, witness
competent under the State law was also
competent in the United States courts, and
such has been the rule ever since But this
rule has not been held to apply to criminal
cases or to suits in equity.
Rules of the Federal Courts.
''The rules of evidence in the Federal
courts in equity and criminal cases are not
affected by any State statute on that SUBJ
ject. In the United States courts a de-
fendant cannot testify in a criminal case,
although by statute, his testimony is ad-
missible in the courts of the State. The
act of 1878 first gave to defendants in
Federal courts the right to testify in their
own behalf
SIT appears that the witness, Hall, in ad-
dition TO having once been convicted of
murder, was confessedly guilty of crime
for which he might be imprisoned for a
long term of years. Our strong position is
that the competency Of witness must be
determined by the act of 1889, and that as
Hall was guilty of an ofense, and was in
dicted with the other defendants, he was
not competent as witness"
Mr.. Lyon held that conviction of mur-
der in the second degree was an offense not
known to the common law; that the re-
adoption in 1862 of the general judiciary
act of 1889 changed the status of the law,
and that the law as it existed in 1862 gov
erns the competency of witnesses,
listed in 17S9. and finally that
the record of judgment in foreign juris-
diction is not admissible, and the courts of
are foreign to the courts of |
the Federal Government Following out the |
line of his argument, Mr.. Lyon said: 'TThe |
act of 1862 made all persons competent, ex- |
cept those convicted of the crime of per- |
iurv. Hall might not have been q compe- |
tent witness in 1889, but conditions have |
changed If Hall had been convicted in |
The Federal courts of some Infamous crime !
against the United States, he would not I
nave been competent witness in this
,ase."
A Limit to State Rights.
Judge Burlington here took hand in the
lrgument and indicated that he considered
Hall competent witness, 'for the reason"
laid he, "that State has no right to affect
he rules of evidence fixed by Congress.
Congress in 1889 fixed these rules. In 1862
here was a republication of this act and
he act of 1862 must therefore govern. The
erying of a sentence is equivalent to
,ardon, and it looks to me as though Hall
S a competent witness"
Mr. Breene-There is not statue making
Hall competent witness.
Judge Bufington-Suppose Hall had
committed this murder in 1889 and you
Tould have offered this record, what would
he Court have said?
Mr.. Breene-The record could not have
,een secured, because murder of the second
Iegree, of which he was convicted, was not
,nown to the common law until 1894
Judge Buffington-But suppose you had
ffered the record in that form?
Mr., Breene-Well, 1 suppose the Court
Tould have considered the substance rather
han the mere technicaiity.
This dialogue between the Court and Mr..
'reene continued for some time, the latter
oncluding as follows: 'T do not believe
n shielding men from just conviction,
nd / am very free to confess that 1 have
erous doubts about the result of a new
rial, but my duty is not done until nv
lients are either acquitted or convicted
pom proper evidence and according to the
aw governing the case"
The court took the papers and reserved a
eoiSinn |