The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-03-11
THE kohl MURDER CASE
Chancellor McGill Scores the
Court Of Errors for Granting
the New Trial.

TRENTON, March II, 18s7.-A dissenting
opinion was ON Tuesday filed In the Court
of Errors and Appeals b Chancellor Nc
Gill in the case of Henry Kohl, who was
convicted of murder in Newark and sem
fenced to be hanged. Last week the
Court of Errors granted Kohl a new
trial. on the ground that the evidence in
the first trial and conviction was not of
such a nature that. when fully and fair
ly examined, to satisfy a censiderate.
mind, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the
guilt of the accused.
The Chancellor. Chief Justice Maggie
and Justice Gummere did not concur in
the decision granting the condemned man
a new triad. and the Chancellor gives his
reasons for opposing the new trial in his
dissenting opinion.
This is the case in which the Court of
Errors recently held that a writ of error
IN capital cases, punishable by death, was
a writ of right and not of grace, as it
had generally been looked upon. It was
the practice to apply to- the Chancellor
for writs of error in capital cases, and
when application was made to him in the
Kohl case ne refused to allow the writ.
Kehl's counsel appealed the case to the
Court of Errors, and 1t was there held
that the taking of such Writs were a
matter of right and not discretionary
with the Chancellor.
The Chancellor, in return. expresses
rather fnreibiy what he deems to be an
error In the Court of Errors granting
Kohl a new trial. He said 1T was not
he legislative intent by the act of 1894
that the Court of Errors in its review
OF the proofs should order a new trial
merely because after reading a printed
casa, it th.Has that 1t would, through rea-
senab,e deuht Gpabt or otherwise, have
reached a different conclusion from that
which the jury reached il it had been in
the jury box, This, the Chancellor saws,
would have the effect of rendering nu-
gatory In all criminal cases a conviction
by jury and substitute for 1t the review
of the Court of Errors. "And it appears
to me- he goes on, ito be but a specious
paraphrase of this objectionable intesrpre-
tation to hold that this court may re-
quire whether reasonable men, as such
men may be fashioned in the minds. and
according to the standards of the several
members of this court, should not have
entertained reasonable doubt in the given
case.
The legislation is directed to the re-
view OF the case by an appellate ribuna
to see If there be wrong or INJURY in the
action of the court of first impression.
and not to the hearing of the ease de
Q h legislative emphasis is upon
the requirement that the wrong and in
jury to warrant the courts interference
shall be manifest It must be dernon-
strated. In its review of the case this
court is not to inquire whether 1t afHrma-
lively appears that the conviction Is prop
ea 9eyona its reasonable doubt, but pro-
eeeuing upon the assumption that the
convection IS right, its inquiry must be
whether adherence to that assumption is
p prnfi1eere e ahe g turg 5e t. unjust ny ! 1ba Il Il i, the
meaner and Intelligence in testifying in
erealbIiltg to Their hasr verbs e s. Judge q their
important preliminary, If there be
f fl5isFS 4 tns saf e. S NJ be g srav E
aence ana determine the facts. It is not
the legislative purpose that these func-
tlons Of the jury. shall be oyer-ridden in
part Of the case only which a paper book
presents The statute considered does
not contemplate that the important as
s nlssttsaaatin determining the credibility Of
aeteristics, their demeanor on the wit
ness stand, apparent candor and intelli-
gence In testifying which aided the fury
Is to be eliminated from the case, and
that upon the remnant the case Is to be
determined Dc, noyo, The statute means
what it plainly says, that it must be
manifest; h it clearly appears that
the conviction is wrong either because
It Is against the clear weight of evil
denee or because it has been Influenced
in some way by passion, prejudice, mis-
take, perversien or corruption.p
After reviewing the testimony of the
witnesses the Chancellor says the jury.
eafter probing the case for days, and
qualities which appear only through he
senses Of sight and hearing, Believed
majority, is that upon review by paper
book, which affords only part of the ia
cilities the jury had, they think that the
jury should, as reasonable men, have
doubted. The correctness of this conclu-
sion is not manifest. Nor do / think it
is made so by the suggestion that there
is no adequate proof of motive for the
crime
The Chancellor concludes his opinion
by saying;-f1t Is not clear thai the de-
PENDANT has suffered wrong and injury
from the conviction"