The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-06-09
MYERS TO BE HANGED.
Inc supreme Court Refuses TO Spare
the Asotin Murderer.

C4S H4pla, June s--Special.-The su-
pTefne court has fled ar opinion in the
case OF the state Of Washington. respond
ent rs. Charles z. Myers. appellant, who
was accused of the crime OF murder in
hfst degree, committed In the perpetra-
non or arson The undisputed facts
SHOWN oy the proofs were 10 the effect
tnal certain hotel IN Asorin was de-
stFoyed BY IRE, in which one OF its in
mates lost his life. and the disputed facts
which the prosecution sought 10 prove
were that such IRE was OF incendiary or
lslI' ana that Myers was the incendIary
a verdict OF guilty was rendered and ap-
peIIant sentenced 10 be hanged The first
assignment by the defense is founded
upon the action or the court in refusing
10 allow the Introduction OF proof tend
ing 10 show where one Murphy an en-
pioye OF the hotel. Was at the time OF the
hFe- Tne fact OF Ni-will by Murphy to-
NaFd appellant, X was alleged. warrant
ca the Introduction. but in the absence
OF other circumstances tending in some
manner TO connect him with the commits
sion OF the crime, the supreme court IS
unable 10 see how his whereabouts could
have any effect upon The question OF
guilt OF the appellant.
The second exception grows out OF the
fact that one OF the circumstances relied
upon BY the prosecution was horse tracks
upon the road. and as 10 the nature and
AArSa4A4rHS u WHICH Witnesses testified. IN
croSs-examlnatlon counsel for appellant
produced boxes Of dirt With the impress
sion OF horses hoofs therein and thereby
endeav0red TO discredit the witnesses. In
excluding this testimony the trial judge
said. This manufactured testimony. the
manner in which IL vas manufactured.
the manner ia which il is manufactured
in boxes. IS not fair test. and is not one
the law allows as u their being intro
duced as evidence in themselves Il was
claimed the use Of such language was not
proper and had a tendency 10 discredit
the cause OF the appellant. The supreme
court thinks Il clearly appears that the
court was talking about the manner IN
which the exhibits had been manutact-
ured. and that It VAS 20 the fact Of such
manufacture. and not 10 the course OF
the appellant or his counsel IN the pro-
duction OF such tes timoDy that the word
manufactured was intended 10 apply.
and had no tendency 10 influence the
jury.
Referring to an exception 20 the charge
20 the jury. the supreme court dIsmisses
Il as an inaccUracy which furnishes no
sufficient ground for reversal
The other ground is the Insufflciency OF
evidence. II appears from the record
that appellant was once tried IN Asotin
county and a verdict o. murder IN the
first degree returned. which the court
FttA~e4 - Se> a@t~set AlAA+ upon hRPEAl 10
the supreme court the sentence then inn
posed was SCI aside for error OF law in
the trial court Hence Il IS the second
verdict which is now sought 70 be set
aside 20 that Il was rendered hy a jury
% different county Garfeldl from mat
I'm which the crime was committed and a
a time ren9te from its commission But
the supreme court are Of the opinion
;hat when twenty-four men have unanj-
mously come 20 the conclusion that The
evidence established the guilt q the ap-
pellaut beyond 4 doubt, and the trlal court
refused % interfere with the verdict, IL
would he an extreme case which would
warrant them IN Interfering on hat
ground. ard such extreme case IS not here
presented. No error is found IN the rec
or1 and The lower court IS instructed %
tx a Gay for The execution.