Bridgeton pioneer., 1894-05-31

Aouls clenl, Cne convicted murderer,
was brought In for sentence, and the
prounouncing of his sentence was
Judge Reeds first act after opening
Court.
Judge Reed said, ''Louis Fiehl stand
up. The Jury has convicted you of
murder in the second degree. Ofyour
guilt, have not shadow of doubt.
Your whole life has been a campaign
against society, you are burglar by
profession.
The penalty imposed by the law of
the State is inadequate for your crime.
The penalty which the law provides is
sentence of twenty years, and after
the serving Of the sentence. you will
be realeased to again pursue your
villionous career, and some man, get
| ting up In the night to defend his
property, will be killed.
II am sorry' said the Judge, "that l
cannot make your sentence for life.
The sentence of this Court is that you
be confined In the State Prison at
hard labor, for a period of 20 years,
and thence till the costs of this prose.
cution are paid. Sheriff removed the
prisoner" he concluded, turning to
Sheriff, and Fiehl was again hand
cuffed and led away to jail.
The first case moved was the State
against Clarence Ksrins, of Millville,
indicated for illegal liquor selling.
Clarence Kerins, very nice looking
young man, with much the appearance
of a theological student, elegantly
dressed, was brought in from Jail.
When the Judge asked him If he
had counsel, he said no, and on the
the Judge asking him If he
wanted the Court to assign counsel
for him, he said he believed not.
A jury was put In the box.
just at this time Judge Reed re en-
tered the bench. Kerens was ordered
removed, leaving the jury In the box
and the Judge announced that hewould
now hear the argument on the de-
murers against the indictments found
against the oystermen dredging on the
riparian grounds.
Ex.Judge Pancoast and Lawyer Ba-
con. on the part of the oystermen and
Col Potter, with Prosecutor Logue,
on the part of the riparian owners,
were In Court.
The argument was begun by Judge
Pancoast, he taking up the indict-
ment against Capt. Lswis. All the in
dictments were considered collective.
ly.
He said the indictment charged q
crime unknown to the statutes of the
State, and then proceeded to reuiew
the laws and decisions of the status.
He denied that misdemeanor had
been committed and these persons
cannot be called to trial according to
law. 10 support of this he read co.
piously from the legal authorities be.
fore him.
The laws especially the amended
oyster laws of 1890. defined how the
oyster beds should be staked up. The
indictments said ''duly staked up,"
but did not say how they were staked
up. The Indictment, he said, might
have abbreviated the whole business.
Col. Potter began his argument
against the demurers by saying that
1t was we'll for the Court to bear In
mind that such indictments as these
were no novelty in this county. They
have frequently been found by the
Grand Jury and persons have been
frequently convicted, so that the in
dictments are not laboring under the
disadvantage OF novelty, but rather
have the advantage of the precedent.
Broadly the Colonel argured that
the acts referred to by Judge Panooast
were unconstitutional. If so then ev-
cry dollar collected by the Oyster AS
ISOLATION were illegally collected, and
the clients of the Judge would neces-
sarily be held for this illegal collection.
The able lawyer then briefly re-
viewed the acts of the Legislature con
cerning the protection of oysters, and
explained the magnitude of the indus
try which had grown under the pro-
lection of these statutes.
The Colonel was very able in his ar
guments, and he apparently met with
great power the arguments of the
Camden lawyer. During the argu-
ment, Judge Pancoast began to be
very much interested, and asked
questions of the Colonel which were
promptly answered.
When the Colonel had finished his
argument. Judge Reed had short
consultation with Judge Hosglsnd,
| and then retired to the Judges room.