Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-01-11
THE WRIT REFUSED.
arAY,s APPLICATION TO THE ST.
pREME COURT DISMISSED.
CONSPIRACY WASCHARGED.
The senator Expressed the Belief lie
couId Not Get Fair Trial on hc-
, NJ pofiticni Prcjudice-Ap-
..,,o,. Court thought Differently.

puu.ADELPHIA. January 1O.-The Su-
irene Court to-day, In On opinion hanueu
down bv chlef-Justlce 'sterret. dismissed
,ha apnlication in the Quay conspiracy
case for writ Of certiorari. ana placed
| the costs on the petitioners.
The petition OF the defendants Ohiteu
states Senator NJ s. Quay, r. Quay ana
BENJAMIN NJ. Haywood, averred that on
account of political prejudlces they were
Of the belief that they could not obtain
4 fair and impartial trial in the Phila-
delnhia Court Of Quarter Sessions, where
the suit against them was Instituted.
The opinion of the court was handed
TO the Clerk, but was not read from the
bench. Judge Sterret merely announcing
the dismissal OF the rule to show cause
why a writ Of certiorari should be Issued
There was no dissenting opinion
A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.
The charge against the defendants IS
that Of conspiracy with John ). HOPKINS
the cashier Of the Peoples Bank Who
committed suicide in March lasO, In the
misuse Of State funds on deposit in that
hank. The defendants were placed under
arrest in October last, and, as result oil
n preliminary hearing, entered BAN TOT
trial.
Several postponements OF the fixed date
for trial have taken place. Senator quay
and his co-defendants have persistently
claimed in their defence in the pelimi-
nary proceedings that the prosecution
was instigated by his political enemies
with the object Of defeating his re-elec-
ton to the United States Senate.
CHARGE AGAINST JUDGES.
a.
Countv Court were mentioned IN the petit
ton Of the defendants which was filed
with the Supreme Court az under the ban
Of the defendants suspicion. Judges Cor
don and Finletter were the members Of the
judiciary named. These judges were on
the bench at different times during the
earlier proceedings Judge Gordon. how
ever, has resigned from the bench to en-
gage In professional practice and Judge
Finletter. at the time the trial was 10
proceed had retired from the Quarter
Sessions Court 20 his regular duties I'm
the Court Of oyer ana Terminer and
would not have presided at the trial.
The petition Of the defendants FOR
writ of certiorari put an end TO the pro
ceedings I'm the lower court, and it is not
yet known when the case will be recalled
by the District Attorney.
/ Iif4 / IlltfO4N4N t<if Nllfh
Another interesting point in the case IS
that the personnel in the District Attor-
ney's office has changed since the proceed
ings were instituted. J.. f.. ROthermel
was elected i'm November last ana as
sumed the Office January lst. succeeding
George s. Graham, whom the defendants
in this case alleged was particularly ac-
tive by reason Of political enmity ln
pressing the prosecution. Mr. Graham
was. however, engaged by Mr. ROthermel |
as special attorney 10 conduct the opposi-
ton before the Supreme Court last week |
to the motion for the writ OF certiorari. |
Whether Mr.. Graham will handle the |
case when it is resumed has not been |
made public.
The opinion holds that the Supreme |
Court has jurisdiction. and sustains the !
point by previous decisions on that point. |
It says, though, that the question Of Ger |
tiOrari must be exercised in and for the |
administration of justice. not 10 defeat |
1t or needlessly embarrass il. And that /
the court cannot assent to the petitioners |
contention that IT is this courts duty TO- |
i'm his case review the action Of the |
court below, on Oyerruling the demurrers |
to some Of the indictments and refusing |
to quash the others
The orders Overruling the demurrers |
and refusing to quash are merely inter
locutory.
WILL HAVE A FAIR TRIAL
The opinion further says that no right |
to appeal therefrom TO any court lies
until after conviction and sentence
The Court, therefore, is Of the opinion
that It has no authority TO review the |
action of the court below on the demur-
rers ana the motion to quash. The only |
other contention of the petitioners that
requires notice is that they cannot have
a fair and impartial trial in the Court Of
Quarter Sessions Of Philadelphia county.
where the indictments are stul pending on
issues Of fact raised by the defendants
pleas of "N0t guilty" on this point the
Court says: I'VE cannot assent TO this
on the contrary. we are sat
isfed thai the petitioners can and will
have a fair and impartial trial in that
court before a competent and unpreju-
diced judge and fair and impartial jury.
III we thought otherwise we would not
hesitate a moment to send the indictments
to another jurisdiction for trial"