The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-03-05
HOLMES IS TO HANG
The Highest Tribunal of the State Decides
the Fate Of pietzeI's Slayer.
THE CASE CANNOT Be APPEALED,
Relieved Thnt Holmes hRas Given Up
Hope of Securing IL New Trial
Sent for Catholic Ciergyman-
The Opinion Of Justice williams
In Extenso Mrs. Yoke Testt imo ouy

Philadelphia. Pa, March 4.-The
State Supreme Court this morning af-
frrned the verdict of murder in first
degree in the case of Herman W. Nudge
alias II. H. Holmes. found guilty in
the Court of Oyer and Terminer Of
this city OF the murder of Benpamin
II. Pietzel
The opinion. which was delivered by
Justice Williams. overrules all the as
slgnncnts of error and aflirmS the
Judgment OF the lower court. 1t holds
mat no substantial error was pointe,l
and that the evidence fully sustalns>the
verdict.
Lawyer Samuel p Rotan. OF counsel
Tor Holmes this afternoon conveyed the
findings of the court to his client. The
recent action of Holmes in requesting
Archbishop Ryan. OF the Roman Catho-
lie Church, to send Il clergyman to him
and the subsequent visit to the condemn
ed man of Rev. DR. p. 7. Daley, rec
tor of the Church Of the Annunciation,
Is believed to indicate that Holmes gave
up hope OF securing n new trial before
the decision of the Supreme Court was
made known. Now that the highest tri-
bunal In the State has decided that the
alleged slayer of Pictzcl shall hang, the
visits Of Father DALEY will proba bly,
be made regularly.
District Attorney Graham. who prose-
cuted Holmes, is authority for the state
ment that the case cannot be appealed
TO the United States Supreme Court
and that the decision of the State Court
is final.
In the opinion Justice Williams says
This is II NoluminouS record. An eX-
animation OF II shows that the trial Of
the defendant furnished some unlock ed
for situations and dramatic Incidents
hut no one of them seems to have been
the result of anything irregular or SEN
Sational in the manner or ruling of
the learned trial Judge (Judge Arnold)
On the other hand 1t is apparent that
they werr due to the extraordinary char
acter of the circumstances with which
the defendant has surrounded himself
and TO his interference with the usual
methods of trial. Indeed. the assign
ments of error. although thirteen in
number, have been intended To raise no
questions except such as may be charac-
ter!Zc'l as general questions of law
The first, second, third and fourth as-
signments relate to the admissihiity Of
the testimony OF GeorEana Yoke who
was called as q witness by the Com
monwealth and whom the defendant al
legged to be his lawful wife. At the time
this witness was called there was evil
dence before the court showing that the
defendant had an establishment of some
sort at Williamet, In Illinois which was
known. at least to some Of his acuuain-
tances, as his home. where as H. H.
Holmes, he lived with woman who was
understood to be his wife. There was
nothing in the name OF the witness
and there was nothing in her testimony
when she was first on the stand to sug-
Eest that she was the wife OF the pris-
Oner. An objection to her competency
taken when she was first called. would
nave nothing on which to rest AT a
late stage of the trial she was recalled
by the defendant and examined upon
this subject She then stated that she
had been married to the prisoner by
clergyman In the city OF Denver. In
January, 1894. but that she learned he
fore his arrest that he had been married
some time previously to a woman living
In Gilmanton, n. H., whom she under
stood to be still living. She had heard
stu earlier of the woman at Wiliamet
but did not understand that Howard
had been lawfully married to her. The
witness was apparently satisfied that
her marringc was not valid. and she had
resumed the use of her maiden name
As she was competent. prima facie. when
called and examined. the burden OF
showing hcr Incompetence was on the
prisoner, who alleged it. The testimony
OF Miss Yoke. to which we have lust
referred, was given for that purpose, and
1t was all the evidence upon that sub
3cct. The fair effect of II was 10 show
that no legal marriage had taken place;
that Miss Yoke had been cruelty de-
ccivcd. and that the legal wife of the
prisoner lived at Gilmanton n. H. The
learned Judge would have been justified
In doing what the prisoners counsel
complain .hai he did not do. vM.: Treat
this question of competency as Il ques-
tfon of law and ovcrrule the objection to
her testimony at once. What he did
was more favorable to the prisoner
than he had right to ask. He submit
ted the question of the legality of the
marriage to the jury. instructine them
that II they found il 10 be valid they
should reject the testimony Of the wit
ness altogether. We do not see how
the prisoner can expect successfully
10 complain of a ruling that gave him
on" more chance for n favora bile decision
upon the question Of the competency of
witness than he bad the right TO ask"
Lawyer Eotan said this afternoon, af-
ter learning the decision OF the Court:
II am sorry that we failed but what
course we shall now take will be de-
ternined upon at Il conference with my
associate In the case (Attorney Monn).
and II Is too early to discuss that
nOiDt ~