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 Pietz8I'S Slayer.
THE CASE CANNOT Be APPEALED,
Believed That Holmes Aaas Given Up
Hope OF Securing II New Trial
Sent for Catholic ClcrgYman-
The opinion Of Lnstice williams
In Extenso Mrs. Yoke's Test ttmony

Philadelphia, Pa. March 4.-The
State Supreme Court this morning af-
hrned the verdict OF murder in first
degree in the case of Herman w. Nudge.
alias II. II. Holmes, found guilty in
the Court of Oyer and Terminer of
this city OF the murder OF benjamin
f. Petzel
The opinion. which was delivered by
Justice Williams overrules all the as
eignments OF error and afiirms the
Judgment of the lower court 1t holds
mat no substantial error was pointed
and that the evidence fully sustainS>the
verdict
Lawyer Samuel p. Rotan. OF counsel
Tor Holmes, this afternoon conveyed tie
nndinSs of the court to his client. The
recent action of Holmes III requesting
Archhishop Ryan. of the Roman Catho-
lie Church, to send II clergyman to him
and the subsequent visit to thu condemn
ed man of Rev. DR.. p. i. 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 tho highest tri-
bunnl In the State has decided that the
alleged slayer of Piet.cl shall hang, the
visits Of Father Daley will probably
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 Il VoluminouS record. An eX-
animation of ii shows that the trial OF
the defendant furnished some unlocked
for situations and dramatic Incidents
hut no one OF them seems to have been
the result of anything irregular or SEN
Sattonal In the manner or ruling of
the learned trial Judge (Judge Arnold
On the other hand, It is apparent that
they werc 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-
teriZcd as general questions of law.
The first, second, third and fourth as
signmcnts relate TO the ndmissibility of
the testimony of Gcorisiana Yoke. who
was called as 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
dencc before the court showing that the
defendant had an establishment of some
sort at Williamct, In Illinois. which was
known. at least to some OF his aCouain-
H.
Holmes. he lived with a 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
have nothing on which to rest At n
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
n clergyman In the city of Denver in
January, 1894. but that she learned he
fore his arrest that he had been ma FRIED
some time previously to a woman living
I'm Ginanton. y. H.. whom she under
stood to be still living. She had heard
still earlier of the woman nj Williamct
but did not understand that Howard
had been lawfully married to her The
Witness was apparently satisfied that
her marriage was not valid and she had
resumed the use of her maiden name
AS She was competent, prima facic when
called and examined. the burden of
showing her incompctcncv was on the
prisoner, who alleged ii. The testimony
of Miss Yoke. to which we have lust
referred, was given for that purpose and
II was all the evidence upon that sub
jcct The fair effect of II was to show
that no legal marriage had taken place
that Miss Yoke had been cruelty de-
ccived, and that the legal wife Of the
prisoner lived AT CINNAMON. n. FL The
learned judge would have hecn justified
In doing what he prisoners counsel
complain that he did not do. viz: Treat
this question of competency as q ques-
tion of law and OVcrrule the objection to
her testimony at once. What he did
was more favorable to the prisoner
than he had n right to ask He submit
ted the question of the legality of the
marriage to the jury. instructing them
that IL they found II 10 be valid they
should reject the testimony Of the wit
ness altogether We do not sec how
the prisoner can expect successfully
10 complain "f a ruling that gave him
ono more chance for n favorable decision
upon the question Of the competency OF
witness than he had the right to ask"
Lawyer Rot;ln said this afternoon, af-
ter learning the decision OF the Court:
Il am sorry that we failed, hut what
coilrs" we shall now take will be de-
termined upon at u conference with my
associate In the case attorney Monn)
and 1t Is too early to discuss that
~.