Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-02-27

CROSSING. iG was III IHb Fsll!e hcClutHL
that Miss Carpenter met her death.
All these cases wetc SPECIAL jury cases.
Their settlement cuts down the list
materially.
The county court has had some brief
sessions this term, but it broke the
record Saturday, when Crier Smith an
nunced its adjournment about three
minutes after 10 o'clock. 1t had been
in session SO seconds, recording 10 the
parliamentary.
Iu spite of the short session ono
) item of business was disposed of.
Leonard Il. Wales, Jr., asked that his
name be substituted for that of Levi
G. Bird in the case OF John +. Pierce
VS.. the Wilmington City Railway Co.
This was granted, and upon Mr..
Wales motion as attorney for the
plaintiff, the case was continued until
the May term of court
Adjournment was made until next
Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
The case OF Horace Valentine VS.. the
Fidelity Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
was to have been tried in superior
court Monday, but j. II. Hotfecker, Jr.,
representing the deiendent, asked for
a continuance. Levi y. Bird, for the
plaintiff, objected, but tho Court finally
decided TO continue the case until next
term.
In the case of John Doordan, d. b.
a., Va. Blackwell & Cassidy, p. b. r.,
Dilburne Chandler, counsel for Black
well & Cassidy, stated that the plaintiff
below would accept judgment for $50
and costs. j.. r. Cochran, Jr., repre-
sented Doordan. Judgment was entered.
Court took up other cases that re-
mained on the list. In the case of
Ewing vs.. Elliott and Ewing VS.. Toy,
amended pleadiugs were fled and they
were continued until the May term.
The appeal cases of McWhorter ys.
Gam and Campiglia vs. Beresford were
also continued.
The case of Garrett S. Smith, d. b.
a., vs. HeaId & Co., p. b, r., was
marked discontinued.
Court adjourned until 7.20 O'Clock
Monday evening.
The motion for a new trial for Daniel
Brown and John j. Swan, who stand
convicted of manslaughter in causing
the death of Leon Pisa at the State
Hospital for the Insane at Farnhurst,
was argued before the full bench of the
court OF over and terminer Monday
evening. The prisoners were represented
by Andrew G. Gray and II. II. Ward.
The State was represented by Attorney
General Robert q. White and Deputy
Attorney General Peter i. Cooper, Jr.
Brown and Swan were not in the
court room.
Andrew G. Gray prefaced the argu
ment by reading the II reasons given
by the defence for new trial.
The brief laid down the following
propositions;
"The court in which trial was had
of purity who was wrongfully con-
victed by reason OF anything occurring
upon a trial can, upon reasonable APP
plication, review the eVidential features
OF trial, and set ASIDE verdict for
any cause that would avail in civil
cause where "A motion for new trial
should be made.
"The granting of new trials is a
matter in the legal discretion OF tine
court, and this discretion will be eXer-
cised 10 prevent Injustice
'A new trial will be granted more
readily by the trial court who heard
the evidence than by an appellate court
reviewing the case.
"A new trial will be granted more
readily in criminal case than in
civil one, and in considering the motion
for a new trial, greater latitude in the
examination Of the evidence will be
permitted, because greater degree of
certainty in the evidence is required,
and also life and liberty are endangered
as against merely property in civil
causes.
"Before sentence can be pronounced
on defendant in a criminal case, he
has right to the judicial determina-
tion Of his guilt by the court as well
as by the jury. II Tie verdict does not
satisfy the conscience of the Court the
prisoner is entitled to new trial.
''If the Court is not satisfied with
the verdict, and believe that there
may remain reasonable doubt of the
guilt of the defendants, it is the duty
of the Court to set it aside, even though
there may have been some conflict in
the testimony.
"a person not of sound mind is in
capable of testifying. Where an obiec-
tidn is made 70 the general competency
of a witness to testify in cause upon
ground which would forbid his being
qualified to testify by being sworn, and
sworn testimony of competent and
credible witnesses has been adduced
to prove the ground OK incompetency
of the witness, the unsworn statement
of the witness in court should not be
regarded in any sense as evidence to
rebut or remove the effect of the testi-
mony which disqualifies him. In such
Il case the testimony of the witness
Y,rpnoaGl cbntIlfI ba aypltt1an
''On the proof Of insanity, opinions
of medical men are entitled to peculiar
weight.
after insanity has been proved. the
presumption is against sanity, which
presumption continues until the con
trary is shown by the evidence.
''As to the effect of the division of
the Court upon the question of the in
competency of David M. NAPLES to
testify, the following seem to be correct
principles. General insanity being
proved, as has been done in this case,
the presumption is that it continues
and it rests on the party offering the
witnes to show the Court that he has
been SO far restored to sanity as that
he may be heard as witness, with
any reliance upon his memory and
judgment.
Where evidence is rendered, OBJ
jected to, and the Court divides upon
it's admissibility, the evidence is OK
cluded
I'm the case before the court the
witness NAPLES was rendered by the
State; his competency as witness was
objected to by the defence on the
ground of his insanity; adequate and
legal testimony was produced by the
defence, establishing the witness in
sanity before, on and after the 9th day
of October, 1895, that he was not, at
tha tina OF tendnrinn b inn aa a Mitnesa