The San Francisco call., 1896-03-17
Startling Instance Of a Judges
Power in the Muhlner
Case, Oakland.
MAY FREE A HOMICIDE.
Verdict of Manslaughter Set Aside,
Because the Evidence Pointed
at Murder.

The case of Louis A. Muhlner, now
about to come before the Supreme Court,
presents rather interesting instance OF
the effect of that rule which the higher
court itself has laid down concerning the
right of Judge to set asid the verdict of
a jury.
Louis A. Muhlner was tried in the Grim
inal court of Oakland for murder and was
found guilty of mans,aughter. Judge
Frick granted motion for new trial on
the ground that there was no evidence for
the verdict of manslaughter, while there
was sufficient evidence for verdict of
murder.
The prosecution has appealed to the
Supreme Court from this ruling. 1t alleges
fronted with the alternative of winning its
point on appeal in face of ruling of the
Supreme Court or trying for second con-
viction OF manslaughter also in face of a
ruling of the Supreme Court. So the
prosecution is working to hard lines any
way one looks at it, while man convicted
of unlawful killing seems to stand In fair
way to 60 scot free.
The situation is this: Muhlner was
charged with the murder OF his sweetheart.
The jury brought in verdict of man.
slaughter. That released him of the graver
charge. The court set aside the verdict on
the ground that ''there was evidence sutfi-
cient 10 warrant verdict of murder, but
not evidence sufficient to warrant verdict
OF manslaughter."
If the Supreme Court sustains the lower
court it will result in setting a convicted
murderer free. If the Supreme Court
shall say, RS has the lower court, that
there is not sufficient evidence to warrant
conviction on the charge of man.
al for vi
recourse but to set Muhlner free, despite
the fact that in the opinion of Judge Frick
he is guilty of murder.
Lawyers are citing this case as a most
startling exposition of the effect of con-
ferring upon the Judge of trial the power
to set aside the judgment of jury.
Assistant District Attorney Church, who
conducted the prosecution and prepared
the proposed bill of exceptions, while agree
ing with the court that there was sufficient
evidence TO warrant a verdict of murder,
holds that there was also sufficient evil
dence to warrant verdict of manslaughter
if the jury had doubt as to the premedi-
therefore claims that the court erred in
setting aside the verdict. All the evi-
dence is set forth in the bill. together with
numerous citations of law TO sustain the
position. The evidence is all circumstan-
tial but forms coTplete chain, sufficient,
as stated, to convince Judge Frick of the
guilt of the defendant of the higher crime
of murder. and the jury that hehad done
the killing.
The murder was committed last August.
Louis A. Muhlner was engaged to marry
Jennie Lewis, the murdered girl. She was
employed as domestic with the family of
DR.. George Moore, Edwards street, Oak
land. Muhlner had met Miss Lewis at
country place two years before and fallen
deeply in love. She came to Oakland
shortly after, as did he, and they became
engaged. In August he invited her to ac-
company him to a ball at Point Olema,
Marin County. She consented and he sent
casion. He was to meet her there. He
went, but did not find her. She sent him
word the next day that she had been un-
able to get her dress in time.
She had told him some weeks before
that she was keeping company with a
young man named Charley Miller, and
gave him the impression that she thought
well of him.
When his sweetheart did not come
Muhlner remembered this, and the ball
had no further interest for him. He
started TO walk to town that night over a
lonely rode and arrived next morning at
San Rafael, where ne visited the young
woman's parents, found she was not there,
and left, saying he would Elk her" so that
anybody else. He learned that his sweet
heart was to attend a ball at Germania
Hall, Oakland, that evening, with Miller.
He went to the ball and saw them to-
gether. He talked to the young woman,
told her sae must not 60 with Miler-that
he was hoodlum-and, taking her bv the
arm, insisted that she go with him. She
broke away from him.
Next day the young woman received
word that. Charley Miller was lying sick in
certain room in a certain hotel, and
wanted her to come to him. She hastened
to the place, but found Muhlner there in
stead, not sick, but eager to plead with her
her. She left him.
The next night she was seen standing
on tho porch at the rear of DR.. Mooar's
residence in company with a young man
who was at the trial described as closely
resembling Muhlner. At 4 o'clock the
next morning her body pierced by two
bullets was found at the foot of the stairs
in the yard.
Search was Immediately Instituted for
Muhlner, and he gave himself up to the
San Francisco police, saying he under
stood they were looking for him. He de-
MED knowing anything about the murder
A package of his own letters written to
Miss Lewis was found upon him, but he
said he had visited and secured these let
ters from her some hours previous to the
time OF the shooting, and was not in Oak
land that night. He was, however, seen
at the Newland House combing his hair
half hour after the time of the shooting,
which was about sufficient to allow him to
get there from the scene of the killing.
This is resume of the evidence upon
which the jury found a verdict of man.
slaughter, which verdict judge Fr1ck has
set aside. The appeal will come before the
Supreme Court in a few days.
BANKS GONE.