The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-12-01

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 30.-Judge
Arnold today refused to grant a. new
trial to H. II. Holmes, convicted of the
murder of B. f. Pitzel in this city in
September. 1894, and sentenced him to
death.
Holmes, when ne came into court.
looked careworn, and seemed to have
lost his air of confidence. The court
opened with a tilt between Judge Ar
mold and Lawyer Rotan, counsel for
the defendant. The judge charged
that Rotan offered to insult the court
by sending briefs to Presiding Judge
Thayer and Judge Wilson, who sat
with Judge Arnold when Holmes had
argued for new trial, and neglecting
to send hirn a copy. Rotan pleaded
haste as an excuse.
The main reasons for a new trial
put forth by the defendants counsel
were the admission of the testimony of
Miss Yorke, whom Holmes claimed as
his lawful wife; district attorneys
speech to jury, when he brought the
murder of the children into the case
and that part of MRS. Pitzefs testimony
in which she said the last time she
saw her children was in the '.norgue
at Toronto"
In reference to Miss Yorke's eligi-
bility as a witness the judge said it
was the opinion of the court that
Holmes was not only married to a
Willamette. H., woman, when he
welded Miss Yorke, but also had a,
wife in Gilman, N. H. Therefore his
marriage to Miss Yorke was null and
void, and her evidence was admissible.
The opening speech of the district
attorney was not open to objection. 1t
was the intention of Holmes, said
THdCp q T0nld n f3KQ off the aT1rira
Pitzel family in order to secure the
property belonging to the murdered
man.
AS to the statement of Mrs. Pitzel,
the judge had instructed the jury not
to be influenced by the woman's
statement. He closed by saying that
the court approved the verdict and re-
fused a new trial.
District Attorney Graham asked that
sentence be pronounced.
Holmes was ordered to stand UP.
Judge Arnold said
Herman w. Mudgetts, have you
anything to Say?"
Holmes replied in a barely audible
voice: II have nothing to say"
Judge Arnold then pronounced the
death sentence in the usual form.
Governor Hastings will fix the day
of execution.
An appeal to the supreme court will
be taken at once
Was Unmoved.
When the words that sealed his doom
were pronounced in low impressive tones,
Holmes was unmoved. During the entire
time he did not finch, but looked the
judge squarely IN the eye and as the last
sound died away, he turned to one of his
attorneys and remarked quietly: well,
that settles all.' He was then led from
the dock.
The opinion denying the new trial COW
cred about forty pages of typewriter
copy. All the facts brought out in the
evidence were carefully set forth and
the varied statements made by the pris-
oner regarding the identity of the body
and the manner IF death were critically
analysed. Every one Of the numerous
exceptions submitted by the defense was
overrlled and in moro than one instance
the court reprimanded the prisoners
counsel.
In dismissing the objection to the open
ing speech made by District Attorney
Graham, the court remarked that the
very subject objected TO was suggested
by the defense when the application for
a posuponement was made.
At the time the counsel gave as one of
their reasons the statement that three
murders were charged and that they were
unprepared to meet them all.
In the course of his opinion Judge Arm
old referred TO the other murders that
are said to have been committed by
Holmes, and said, incidentally, that evil
dence as TO them might have been adj
United as IenQlng 10 snow the motive.
The Summary.
The court summed up the case as fol-
lows:
Upon the whole case we are convinced
that the commonwealth proved such
chain of circumstances that led to the
conclusion that the defendant did kill
and murder Benjamin Pietzel on Septenl-
Der 2, 1894, as charged in the bill of in
dictment; that Pietzel was killed by
chioroform poisoning administered by the
defendant: and whether Pietzel was
asleep or under the influence of liquor at
the time the chloroform was administered
is not important.
THE theory advanced by the defend
ant and argued by his counsel to the jury
that Pietzel committed suicide and that
the defendant arranged his body in such
a manner as to make the death appear
to have been the consequence Of an eX-
ploSion, has no substantial evidence upon
which it can be based. An act of that
kind would require GOODNESS and delibera-
tioll, whereas the testimony showed that
the defendant Immediately after he left
Pietzel was excited, nervous and worried,
and his Undertaking was wet with per-
s,,iration. This was the condition of a
man who had committed a great crime,
rather than one who was trying to con-
ceal the evidence of a suicide. If PietZel
had committed suicide, it is not probable
that he would have fed from the city.
Flight is the act of a guilty man. Being
firmly convinced of the guilt of the de-
PENDANT, we approve the verdict and re-
fuse a new trial.