Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-12-20
THE FAMOUS EASTMAN CASE.
Attorneys Howard and Arnett Are
Home from Parsons.

Both Talk of the Trial and Of the
Verdict-The Defense Will APP
peal to a Higher Court on Ac-
count Of Judge Hollis Alleged
Cruel and Unusual Sentence.
Local Stenographers Employed
in the Case.
Hon. John "A. Howard, who dis
tinguished himself on the side of the
prosecution in the Eastman murder
case, arrived home from Parsons Sat
urday evening. Col. w. w. Arnett,
who was one of the counsel for the
defense, remained day longer in
order to consult with other counsel for
Col. Eastman, and arrived home yes
terday Mr.. Lewis E. Schrader, OF
this city, and Mr.. Bumgardner, Of st.
Clairsville, were employed by the de-
tense as stenographers, and have also
returned home Both received many
complimentary notices upon their eff
cient services, and their value was
evidenced by the frequent references
to their notes by counsel on both
sides of the case.
Mr. Howard, when seen at the Hotel
Windsor last night by a Register re-
porter, expressed his satisfaction that
the case was finally brought to close
last week. He answered a question
concerning the alleged illegality of the
sentence imposed upon Eastman by
Judge Holt. 1t was the popular I'M
preston that the extreme penalty for
Involuntary manslau2hter fixed by
statute, is one years confinement In
Jail and $500 fine. AS matter OF
fact, the statute defines voluntary
manslaughter as misdemeanor, but
is silent as to the penalty. Counsel
fer the defense argue that as the pun
ishment for voluntary manslaughter IS
imprisonment in State prison Tor from
one to five years, involuntary man
slaughter, being lesser offense,
should be punished by a maximum
sentence of one year in jail.
"The only limitation as to the PEN
atty" said Mr.. Howard, lis a consti-
tutional one, found in the provision
against cruel and unusual punish
ment.' Under the common law, the
offense was punished by imprison-
ment of from one to five years. In
the Garrison case, the same verdict
was found, and the Court, in imposing
the thirteen months previously served
in Jail by the defendant, made the pen
atty two years. Judge Nun. Jackson
recently imposed a sentence OF two
years and six months upon a prlsones
found guilty of involuntary man
slaughter.
"1he fact that the jury found ver-
dict of involuntary manslaughter, IS
proof that Col. Eastham's plea of self
defense was not sustained. 1t was a
compromise verdict, such as juriea
often find. AS the jury found that
Col. Eastman killed Thimpson, and
the deed was not done in seif-defense,
Imprisonment for two years is GER
tainly not cruel or unusual punish
ment. 1t is true that custom has fixed
one year as the maximum penalty, but
it is custom only
Col. w. w. Arnett expressed an
opinion to a Register reporter upon
the other side of the case. He said:
"The counsel in the Eastman case
are satisfied that the penalty Of two
years in the county Jail, affixed by
Judge Holt, is without authority OF
law. The outside limit is twelve
months, Notwithstanding it must be
by common law and there is no pun
ishment prescribed by statute what
ever.
"Application in legal form will be
made to the proper forum within a
very few days. There is no question
but that Col. Eastman will not under
go any considerable portion of the two
years sentence
IF a writ of error, instead Of writ
of habeas corpus. should be sued out
and a new trial obtained, as there is
no doubt would be the result, East
ham could only. be tried for involun-
tary manslaughter, not for murder,
and hence the case abandoned. This
may be done, and, if so, will be done
to make the vindication, now so near
ly so, absolutely complete. 1t is said
the jury did not sustain Col. East
hams plea of self-defense; it certainly
did not sustain the States plea of ma
licious killing, even in the mildes;
form. The truth is, Col. Eastman and
his counsel offered to plead guilty tc
involuntary marslaughter, but were
refused the privilege. 1t is perfectly
plain that the jury intended, by it's
finding, to vindicate the action Of the
first grand jury, which indicted East
ham for Involuntary granddaughter
and which was repudiated by Judge
Holt
Whatever may be conceded as tc
the honesty OF purpose of Judge Holt
in attempting to punish one whom he
believed to be a murderer, it surely
cannot be justly claimed that the trial
was fairly conducted. so far as the de-
ferSe was concerned.
"All these disadvantages taken into
consideration, Col. Eastman and his
counsel congratulate themselves, and
that in a superiative degree. upon the
result of the trial. Of course, al know
that the editors of distant newspaper;
did all they could do, at their distance
from the scene of action. to make theil
reports fair to both sides, but such was
not possible, and while Judge Holi
doubtless designed to be fair to all in
terests, he certainly failed in his ef-
forts.
Z