The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-11-25
ROSA Gets A new TRIAL
Mas Convicted Of Murder Of the First
Degree Last April.
nE KILLED VITO LAUIsso
Judge Edwards Grants Him o New Trial.
Disagreement In the Hardware Firm
of YOos 4 Doyle -GOldeu Jury
Could Not Agree.

Judge Edwards handed down an
opinion Saturday morning granting a
new trial to Leonardo Rosa, h Italian
convicted of murder in the first degree
for the crime Of killing Vito Lauisso. a
fellow countryman, at Dunmore on the
morning Of Feb. % last. The prisoner
was tried at the April sessions of oyer
and terminer court. and on the 18th
of that month the jury brought In its
verdict.
Lauisso's body, riddled with bullets.
was found at 5 a.. m. on Feb. 2S, by some
men on their way to work. The corpse
was partially imbedded in a sheet OF
ice on the sidewalk on Duck" or
Willow street, Dunmore. The man a
been dead about three hours and when
he fell there was a pool of water where
he lay: the winter temperature froze
the water around him.
Suspicion at once pointed to Rosa,
for he, with Pasquale Bevalaqua, Jo-
seph Fabiano and Cerminore Salvatore.
had gone to the house of Leopoldo
Nicotera, where the dead man boarded.
and they reused him out of bed at 3
o'clock the night before and persuaded
him to go out carousing with them.
Lauisso and Rosa We're not on friendly
terms, and 1t was said that the prison.
err was heard prior to the murder to ex-
press a desire to let his victims blood
flow. Money matters were the cause of
the strained relations existing between
them.
The Night Of the Murder.
After the Italians had left Nicotera's
house that night, fetching LauissO out
with them, they visited the saloons and
wound W. an hour after midnight at
the house Of Bartholomew Corbo, where
Rosa and the other three men boarded.
Rosa went out with Lauisso to see
hem home and the presumption was
that they quarrelled yer $40 owed by
Lauisso to Rosa. and that the former
met his death.
Soon after Rosa was lodged In Jail
Frank Agli, al Austrian detective, was
sent uD on the charge of being drunk
and ~disorderly; he was put in the same
cell and on a confession made to him
by Rosa, a strong chain of circumstan-
tial evidence was forged. District At
torney John r. Jones and his law
partner, T. V. Powderly, represented
the commonwealth in the trial and
Rosa's attorneys We're Ward 4 Horn,
James ]. II. Hamilton and John G. Nc
Askie. The case was a notable one, 1t
vas the first time a defendant was
found guilty Of murder in the first de-
gree on circumstantial evidence. At
the June session of argument court
the application for a new trial was
heard.
When word was sent up to the county
Jail Saturday morning at 9 o'clock Or
dering the prisoner to be brought down
to court there was fear and trepidation
In his breast: he expected that his
doom was sealed and that sentence was
about to be pronounced upon him.
Rosa, of the three men tried and found
guilty of murder in the first degree,
had been the most detected and dis
consulate; but when the news was made
known to him Saturday that another
chance has been given to him; 1t trans
formed him into a cheerful and exceed
ingly loquaciOus man, in contrast to his
former sullen and reticent mood.
After he got hack to the Jail he in
formed the keepers that the courts are
all right, that he had done nothing for
which he should be in Jail, and he
confidently expects at the second trial
to be acquitted. Extracts from the
opinion granting the new trial are here
appended:
Reasons for Granting the New Trial.
1t will be remembered that there was no
eye witness to the actual shooting of the
witnesses for the commonwealth. saw him
attacked by the defendant and others in
front of her home: she saw hin dragged
along the road until he was out Of sight
and Immediately heard several pistol
shots. He was found e upon the high
way the next morning. There was evil
dence of threats made by the defendant
against the deceased prior to the shoot
ing, and the defendant mad several con-
Trajectory statements on the e and
subsequent days. Outside Of the testi-
mony Of the detective there was sufficient
evidence to go to the jury on the question
Of murder In the first degree.
n detective was placed in the cell of
the defendant at the county Jail. They
spent four days together, and here the
defendant told the story of his crime.
His confession was, in substance, that
the deceased owed him some money which
him up the street he shot him. He also
said that the revolver was concealed be-
tween the rafters on the top of a wall In
a cellar basement of a house in Dunmore.
After receiving this information the dis
trict attorney, the county detective, Chief
of Police Simpson. Officer Lewis and
Frank Agli. visited Dunmore, and found
defendants revolver In the place indicat-
ed by him., which was strong corrObora-
tive testimony Of the truth of the confess
sion. While there was sufficient testt-
mony to go the jury on the whole in
dictment, outside Of the confession, we
cannot escape the conclusion that the
confession with the striking confederation
that followed 1t In the finding of the re-
volver, must naturally have produced n
convincing effect In the minds of the Jury.
1t Is impossible to say whether the jury
in arriving alta verdict discarded the con-
In the case. or whether the confession
was a controlling influence In their
minds. @ %''F ti
|. The rest Of the. opinion deals with the
dispositions of Detective Agli read at the
argument for a new trial. Agli, in his
affidavit. said that he had not told at
the trial all he knew about the case.
He had not said that Rosa charged
Lauisso with making an attack upon
him with a scissors.
. Wants Partnership Dissolved.
Attorney e. c. Newcomb. represent
ing Charles A. Yoos, began proceedings
in equity Saturday against James b.
Doyle and Attorney j. Elliot Ross. The
plaintiff asks for q decree declaring the
copartnership of YOos & Doyle null and
void, and ordering the defendants to
pay him what may appear to be due on
settling the accounts of the firm. The
bill of equity recites that the plaintiff in
January, 1894, entered into an agreement
with James b. Doyle. one of the defend
ants, to form q copartnership with him
In the business Of tinsmithing, plumb
ing. gas fitting and general trade in
stoves and such goods in the firm name
Of Yoos & Doyle.
On or about November 10, 1896, the
plaintiff waited upon his partner and
asked to be allowed. to see the books of
the firm, but was refused. Upon inves-
tigation the plaintiff has learned that
an attempt has been made, as he verify
believes, by the defendant. to defraud
the plaintiff Of his interest In the stock,
and to secure the same to said Ross,