The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1897-12-02
ATTORNEYS WITHDRAW
UPHAM AND McCARTY OUT OF
THE De PEN STER CASE.
Assert That They We're Not Given
Time to Prepare Defense-Didn't
Like the Ruling of the
Court Lively Episode,

Llke tne hultuR OF WIG
Court- Lively Episode.
A brief but none the less lively episode
occurred in common pleas court this morn
ing, and for about three seconds william
DePeyster, accused of numbering his
wife, was without counsel, Messrs
McCarty and Upham retiring. Judge
McCarty speedily supplied the deficiency
and the case will now, in all likelihood
go forward. The matter came up on a
morning.
The motion was filed late Saturday af.
ternoon asking for continuance OF
the trial which has been specially set for
next Modnay morning. Attorneys c.
c. Upnam and A. NJ. McCarty, in their
affidavit accompanying the motion, stated
that they are of the belief that they could
not get fair and impartial trial at the
time set for the case. The affidavit
| further sets forth that since the time the
crime was committed the defendant has
been confined in Jail and is thereby pre-
vented from assisting his attorneys in
looking up testimony, and that he is
without means to pay for the same. The
attorneys gave as the reasons for their
belief that an impartial trial could not
be had thus early, that Immediately
after the death of Mollie DePeyster, the
cause of her death was investigated by
the coroner of Stark county and that
substantially all of the testimony thus
ELECTED was published in both daily and
weekly newspapers in Stark county, to-
gether with glaring and exciting head
lines which were calculated to engender
public feeling among all the people Of the
county against William DePeyster, and
that said feeling is now more marked
and strong than it will be if said cause
Is continued to a later date, more remote
from the commission of the said ofrense
and the publication of said testimony.
1t was stated that they believe there is
important testimony to be had that Is
absolutely necessary to enable defendant
to properly make his defense, which
they cannot secure before the trial at the
date set. The atlantis said that they ex-
peCted to be able to procure testimony to
show the court that the crime was not
committed by said william DePeyster,
but by some other person now unknown.
Atlantis further said that the time be-
tween the assignment of the case and the
9Th day of December is too short for them
to procure all the testimony necessary
in view of the fact that they have other
professional duties requiring a part Of
their time. For these reasons the attor-
neys claimed that continuance is abso-
lutely necessary.
DE PEYSTER'S CLAIM.
Accompanying the motion and aii'da-
Wit of the counsel for defense was an afi-
davit sworn to by William DePeyster be-
fore A. NJ. McCarty, notary public. De-
Peyster claims that the public mind has
become inAamed against him; that the
people are prejudiced against him to
such an extent that he could not at the
date fixed therefor obtain fair and
impartial trial; that by reason of said
trial following so closely the commits
sion Of said alleged otfense and the pub
lication of said testimony and evidence
of the state he could not have a fair and
impartial trial at the date fixed for the
same
DePeyster further says that on the night
when said alleged crime was committed,
and Immediately before said Mollie De
Peyster, deceased, was burned, he was
out on the pavement in front Of his
house; that there was a man in the house
with her, the said Molile DePeyster; that
he heard them quarreling and using loud
and abusive and profane language toward |
each other; that said man called her vile |
and absive names and said to her that
there was nothing around her but thieves |
and robbers; that within a moment or
two thereafter he haerd her scream and |
he then rushed into the house but the |
man was not to be found that afllant |
found his wife, the said Mollie DePeys-
ter, on fire, her hair was burning and he
attempted to put it out and was thus
prevented from following or looking for
said man; that in trying to extinguish
said fire he burned his face and hands. |
AfIlant said ne did not know who said |
man was, but hoped to be able to ascer-
tain who he was.
ARGUMENTS
1t was on these contentious that Attor-
neys Upham and McCarty appeared in !!
court for DePeyster today and argued for |
4 continuance. Prosecutor Pomerene |
lnf the negative and showed how expen- |
'ive it was to keep state witnesses locked |
up for long time and urged that ample |
lime had been given counsel for defense |
10 prepare their case. One claim was |
hat DePeysters side of the case had moi |
been printed, but the prosecutor init |