The Portland daily press., 1895-11-19
DRAMATIC TO THU End.
Tile Argument for a New Trial for
Holmes.
ONE OF HIS COUNSEL UNDER A
CRIMINAL CHARGE.


81, 500 Bail-Mr. Rotan Argues for
Holmes-The Motion viii Doubtless be
Denied.
Philadelphia, November 1S.-The argu-
ment for a new trial in the case of the
convicted murderer, Holiness was heard
this morning in the Criminal Court
before Judge Arnold, who tried the case,
Judge Wilson and Thayer, tho present
judge of the court.
Holmes was brought from the prison to
the court. The two weeks of confinement
since his conviction has added to the
emaciation that was SO marked when he
was in court before. He has also last
the easy look of confidence that he wore
during his trial and although he was
composed, his anxiety was plainly
visible
Mr. Shoemaker, one of Holmes counsel,
presented an affidavit from q witness
purporting to be named Blancha
Hannigan. In the affidavit the witness
swore that she kept cigar store on
Callowhill street, near the house where
Peitzel was killed, and that she knew the
dead man, and that he told her that he
intended to commit suicide.
District Attorney Graham asked that
the witness be called to the stand, and
Mr.. Shoemaker replied that he did not
know where she was Then Mr.. Graham
called q private detective named
Swezler, to the stand. The detective
testified that Shoemaker, some weeks
ago, had written out the affidavit and
given him $50 to pay some one to swear
to it. Then Detective Geyer was called
and he testified that Swelzler had shown
him the affidavit before it was signed. A
woman was called to the stand, who said
she was the Blancha Hannigan who
signed the affidavit. She swore that she
knew nothing about the statements in
the affidavit. Her name is Rhea and she
is the matron in the fourth police
district. 1t was at the suggestion. 'of
Detective, Geyer that she went with
SWelzler to Shoemaker, and impersonated
| Blancha Hannigan. Shoemaker gave her
| $40 and took her before a notary public,
and she swore to the statement. This
astonishing testimony, that seemed 30
clearly point to a perjured affidavit.
evidently surprised the court and when
! Shoemaker attempted to make some con-
| fused statement, Judge Thayer suggested
to him tnat his greatest safety lay in
| silence Mr.. Rotan. Holiness other at
torney, stated to the court tath he knew
| nothing OF the affidavit, and then he be-
| gan the argument for new trial. Inc
main points of the reasons for asking for
a new trial. are that the district attorney
| influenced the jury, in introducing
| evidence showing that the children were
killed by Holmes, that the defence was
not ready to proceed, and that the court
erred on a number of points in the trial.
AS Mr.. Rotan proceeded it became evident
from the questions of the court that the
application for a new trial would be
refused.
In concluding his argument Mr.. Rotan
| asked the court to take particular note In
their decision of the medical evidence
offered at the trial which he contended
was incomplete and inconclusive.
Judge Thayer replied the court would
consider this phase of the case, especial
! ly, as requested by Mr.. Rotan.
| '"During the trial Mr.. Graham was fire.
quently restrained by points q law ,e.. re-
| ferring to the prisoner, but in his review
of the evidence today he was restrained
! by no such conditions, and he fairly
| withered Holmes with his schorchlng ar
raignment of his various crimes. The
weak point in Mr. Graham's case during
the trial was how Pietzel was actually
killed. His inference was, that Pietzel
! was ohloroformed to death by Holmes,
but he never brought this out clearly:
Judge Wilson seemed struck by this, and
asked how Pietzel was killed He said
| it was the contention of the common
wealth that Holmes chloroformed him te
death, but did not make clear howathey
believed the dead man murdered. Mr..
Rotan seized ON this poinb In addressing
the court in his closing argument and
dwelt upon the improbability OF the mar
of Holiness physique overcoming Pletze
and killing him with chloroform. He
contended that though the commonwealth
had produced evidence to show that Piet,
eel bought pint of whiskey the night
before he died, there was no evidence te
show that he was drunk on the day he
died. or that Holmes administered ohloro
form to him while he was in that condit-
ION. -, , ar
Shoemaker, told him he had most un
pleasant duty to perform. He said, IL
view of the use Mr.. Shoemaker hac
made of the affidavit he presented IL
court this morning, the court had M