The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1893-06-13
Areuing For q New Trial.


| lev Warner, now under sentence of death
for killing Lizzie Peak, at Mount Holly,
was made Tuesday afternoon in the Su-
preme Court, before the Chief Justice and
Branch Court. Ex-Prosecutor Charles E
Hendrickson, who assisted Charles K.
Chambers in representing the de-
PENDANT. led in the argument. The first
errors given in the argument were those
of the court to the Jury.
The counsel for the defendant prepared
series of requests to the court to charge
the jury. The first two and the seventh
were charged as requested, but the other
seven the court partially refused to
charge, and that, it was claimed, had an
adverse effect on the jury. The court re-
fused to charge upon the relation of in
toxication in its effects upon the mind of
the prisoner to his capacity to exercise
that elaboration and generalization that
by the statute are essential ingredients OF
the crime of murder in the first degree,
and to the reasonable doubt whether the
defendant, as a result ofintoxication or its
after effects, had sufficient mental capac-
ity to exercise that deliberation and pre-
meditation. The second point of the ar
gument was that the courts charge to the
eighth request was highly prejudical to
the defendant. The charge was made IN
skeptical way followed up with propo-
sitions of law and argument SO pointed
that the jury may have been biased
against the prisoner.
Further in the argument, Mr.. Hen
erickson stated that the Judges defni-
| tion of murder was erroneous, and that
the court erred in not informing the jury
that the facts they were called upon to
determine would constitute murder in the
second degree.
on the question of the misconduct of
the iurors he spoke at length. The Jury
while ont walking passed the scene of muir
der and the defendant waived the right
IN a new.trial in court Theinsistment was
thar the prisoner on trial upon capital
charge could not act freely, particularly
nnder the rigid alternative which the
conrt declared should follow refusal of
such waiver, and the same was and should
be adjudged to have been an invasion of
the constitutional rights of the prisoner
and therefore void. The action of the
court was erroneous and the error iniu-
r;ous to the defendant. But for the waiver
the iurv would have been discharged and
the defendant have had at least another
chance for his life, if not an absolute dis
charge, as having been once in jeopardy.
Another error was the omission of the
Judce. before sentencing the prisoner to
death. TO demand of him if he knew why
the court might not proceed to sentence
him. This should have been done and il
is material that it should appear on the
record.
inc the afternoon. He declared that Jus
tice Garrison's charge was Clearly, con
cisely and distinctively stated" his
statement of what is necessary under the
statute to constitute murder, his explana
ton of the different degrees, his judicia
, Interpretation of the words "artfnl. de
, Iiberate and premeditated." He praised
t tlue. arnosition of the law governing rea-
sonable doubts and threats. He gave much
time to the personal waiver of-the defend
! ant of the consequence of the visit by the
iurv To the scene of murder. He stated
that the Jury only remained on the spo
three minutes and no one pointed out any
! details to them. He claimed that the de
!. PENDANT was benefited by the visit of thu
, iurv, for the place where the crime wa
|, actually committed was not as favorable
. for a foul crime as short distance be
Il vond. He claimed that the defendan
4 could not waive his right to object to the
Il introduction Of testimony and then aftei
the trial is over say 81 wish to Withdraw
that waiver" He cited considerable au
> thority to sustain the point that in an in
o dictment of murder, no right of the de
d PENDANT can be waived by his counsel o
: by any one acting for him, but that tn
= defendant himself can personally waiv'
a such right. AS to the error that the cour
o did not ask Warner il he had anythin
i to say before sentence, the state insist
= that in Revised Statutes, section SO of th
y Crimes act Eyer person convicted G
9 murder of the first degree, his or he
h aiders, abettors, counselors and procuror'
IS should suffer DEATH" The statute doe
- not require that the Judge ask II he ha
- anything to say why the sentence sha
+ not be pronounced.
Dr. Mr.. Budd also argued that, Will
,e there was possibility under the old Law
- OF necessity for asking the question r.
= ferred TO, the present statute allowing
70 prisoner to testify in his own behalf, d
u away with any such necessity, as a.