New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-10
AN EXTRAORDINARY LEGAL CONTEST.


The laws delays. uncertainties and vexations
were never better illustrated than by the case
of Henry Kohl. whose conviction for murder has
Just been set aside by the NFwJersey Court
of Errors and Appeals and new trial ordered.
Kohl was never, at best, what might be termed
an exemplary citizen. and it is not assuming
too much to say that the evidence on which
jury decreed his death would hardly have
convicted a man who had previously borne a
good reputation. In fact. his bad reputation
seems to have weighed as much with the jury
as the testimony presented to them.
The facts are these: On June 16, 1894. the
body Of Kohs cousin. Joseph Preinell, was
found in ShindIer's Creek. Newark. 1t was ut
first assumed that Preinell had committed sui
eide. and there was no suggestion to the contrary
until some time later, when KOhrs wife, after
suffering maltrcatment Mt his hands, accused
him of killing Preinell. Starting with this as a
basis, an ambitious detective proceeded 10 weave
q net around Kohl. Nearly everybody appeared
to be willing to believe anything of the suspect,
and he was indicted six months after the date
Of Preinels death. In January. 1896 Kohl was
oOnvictetlof murder in the first degree. A few
weeks later his counsel argued q motion for a
new trial. but 1t was overruled by the trial
Judge. Supreme Court Justice Depue. who SEN
fenced Kohl to be hanged on March %. Appli-
cation was thereupOn made TO Chancellor Nc
Gill for writ Of error, and on this being refused
an appeal was taken from his decision. Mean
time the Governor had granted n rcprieve pend
ing n determination Of the questions at issue
Before going further KOhl's counsel asked the
Court of Pardons to commute the sentence to
Of i'm fnr 70 hut
denied. Recourse was then had to the United
States Supreme Court, but Chief Justice Fuller
decided that the point raised was one for the
consideration Of State Court. More applica-
ticns to the Court Of Pardons and the trial court
followed. but all were turned aside. The date
of KOhl's execution had been again set, this
time for February 20. 1896. Two days before
the limit expired the prisoners counsel applied
to the Supreme Court for a mandamus. The
branch court that heard the application con-
sisted Of Justices Van Syckel, Gummere and
Depue. the latter having been the trial Judge
who sentenced Kohl On February 10 the Court
granted the application. and this acted as stay
At the June term I'm 1896 the Branch Court d.
rected that the question as to whether a writ
Of error is writ Of right should be heard before
the Court Of Errors and Appeals The latter
Notwithstanding that writ of error In all GRIM
inal cases Is a writ Of right. but that in cap
ital cases it should issue from the Court of Err
rors and Appeals. writ of error was immedi-
atey taken ont in accordance with this decision.
At this point extraordinary incident
marked this extraordinary case being nothing
less than an effort to have Governor Grlggs ig-
more the writ of error and sign Kohls death
warrant before the Court Of Errors and Ap-
peals could meet; but this the Governor posi-
lively refused to do. Under an act passed
through the Legislature at the instance OF Semi
tor DAILY. the Court Of Errors and Appeals was
enabled not only to consider the legal aspects
Of the matter but TO review the entire proceed
ings. In delivering the decision Of the Court
Of Errors and Appeals. Justice Dixon used this
language
After a careful consideration OF the record. we
find no fault in it, except that the evidence does
not Justify the record. To warrant a conviction
OF crime the testimony should prove the guilt
of the accused beyond "A reasona BILE doubt II II
fails TO do this i. e.. If it be Of such a nature
that when fully and fairly considered IT will
not satisfy reasonable mind beyond a reason
allie doubt Of the guilt of the accused then a
conviction does manifest wrong according to
our system Of administering criminal law
In fine our conclusion is that while the
states evidence raises suspicious against the
defendant, II so clearly 1ils to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt that we are con-
strained to adJudge that he has. In the Ian
guage Of the statute, suffered manifest wrong
upon the evidence adduced upon the trial and
therefore To set aside the conviction and order a
trial.
Neither Kohl nor his relatives have money
enough 10 cover the expenses Of the long and
tedious litigation. let alone to compensate coun-
sci for services. and the fight for the prisoners
FIFE was made as Il matter Of principle and he
cause Of a firm belief that no matter how bad
Kohl may have been he was innocent of
IIeincls blood