The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-05
MUHLNER NOT SENTENCED
Judge Prick Objects to the Yer.
dict and Grants a New
Trial.
SAYS IT WAS A MURDER.
But the Jury Say It Was Manslaughter
and the Prisoner Is Admitted
to Bail.
SAYS IT WAS A MURDER.
OAKLAND OFFICE SAN FRANc1sco CALL,

OAKLAND OFFICE SAN FRANCISCO CALL
90S Broadway, Jan. 4.
Louis Muhlner was granted something
to-day by Judge Prick, but whether it was
new trial or what may ultimately be de-
clared an acquittal by the Supreme Court
remains to be seen.
Louis Muhlner was to have been SEN
fenced this morning for the manslaughter
OF Jennie Lewis, but instead he was adj
mltted to bail in the sum OF $751; 900. Judge
Frlck stated that he was dissatisfied with
the verdict of the jury. Their verdict
should either have been murder or ac-
quittal. The evidence did not Justify a
verdict of manslaughter. During The argu-
ments Judge Prick said there was not one
word of testimony to justify the conclu-
sion that the killing was done without
malice.
When Judge Frick announced his de-
cision District Attorney Church took an
exception and gave notice that an appeal
would be at once taken to the Supreme
Court. He says that if the ruling is sus-
tanned. Muhlner can only be tried a second
time for the charge of mansiaughter.
Should the Supreme Court maintain the
opinion that the evidence would not JUS
tify verdict of manslaughter, Muhlner
cannoG be tried again for murder on the
plea OF twice IN jeopardy, and it may be
found that he is in the peculiar position of
a convicted man against whom no charge
can be made to mold.
Judge Prick concluded that it was an
error on the part of the jury to find YER
dict OF the lesser degree of homicide where
the evidence warranted q conviction of the
greater. On this point he based his de-
cisiOn granting 8 new trial.
Attorney Nagle, vino appeared for
| Muhlner, argued that a new trial should
be granted entirely on the proposition that
the evidence was not sufficient to warrant
a conviction. He claimed that verdict
of acquittal should have been rendered,
| but Judge Prick cast that view aside and
reached the desired end by very different
/ process of reasoning.
! The court stated that the Supreme
/ Court had never squarely pronounced an
opinion on the question of error by jury
! in bringing in a verdict unsatisfactory to
| the court, ana be desired to have it settled
In the higher tribunal. He said he had
examined all the authorities in California
| on the question and had been unable to
! find a single instance where the Supreme
| Court had decided the matter. Should
| Muhlner be tried for manslaughter and
/ the jury take the same view as the court
| the chance for an acquittal would be very
strong.
One of the jurors who tried the case said
to-day that the evidence was not nearly so
clear TO the twelve men IN the box as it
appeared to be to Judge Frick.
For long time after we left the court
ROOM said the juror, eve were evenly
divided between acquittal and murder.
Up 10 the ballot before the last there were
some votes for acquittal and in order to
arrive at a verdict we compromised on
manslaug
AS Muhlner cannot, under the circum-
stances, be tried for anything higher than
manslaughter, and as that is bailabIe
offense, Judge Prick fixed the bond at
$4,000. As Muhlner's folks have a good
standing in Oakland it is expected that he
will soon be at liberty