Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-01-04

SoAciuCl MOllscS VI pol1Cy. IL mdttcI-
ed not to the jury whether defendants
would go back to the brothep' or not,
or resume life of sin and iniquity, and
claimed the only thing for the jury
was the evidence in the case, and not
whether the community would be af-
fected by verdict of not guilty. The
sole question to be determined was
guilt or innocence, and it was error for
Mr.. Howard to indulge in such re-
mark. "Mr. Howard had to pour in hot
shot, showing he was partisan
showing he was biased and prejudiced.
The jury was threatened, and
cajoled, and brow-beaten, and scOlded,
and they were told he
DEMANDED A VERDICT
OF guilty in the name of the people.
| would have thought that my
friend would never have called atten-
ton to an incident once occurring in
his career. and yet he told the jury
that once before he had demanded a
death penalty, and thought he was
right then and thought so now. He
may take satisfaction out of that mat
ter now, but | tell my friend Howard
that the day will come-because he has
a conscience-when he will repent in
sack-cloth and ashes that he ever
demanded and obtained the life of
poor Mayer, who had not the mental
capacity to commit. murder"
HE asked for a verdict in the first
degree-and he succeeded; not in case
in the name of the State and of the
tisan; his case prevailed because of
fbot inv hot do haf conld--
that talk of the monument with its
twelve names-that talk of the coward
ly soldier-that talk of mobs lynching
men because jurors failed to do their
duty-that talk of facing an outraged
public-that talk of the Jurors child
ren-that all produced its effect.
THE EVIDENCE
was not there to do the work. Ny
friend didn't know-he wasn't aware
that when he forced and browbeat that
jury into verdict he killed his own
case. In the zeal of the partisan he
overlooked that fact. That
speech will not stand among Mr.. How
ards creditable efforts. He never ap-
preached an accurate, intelligent, honest
discussion of this case. In some small
matters he did hew to the line of right,
but in the main events he falsified and
distorted the evidence"
Mr. Boyce concluded at three o'clock,
and was followed by Prosecuting At
torney Meyer, who said at the outset
that he would not inflict upon the
Court the reply he would have made
to Mr. Boyce's speech before the jury,
he would not indulge in flights of Or
atory-but would content himself with
an examination of the law and decis-
ions bearing upon the case. 1.-THE law
which my friend has cited to your
Honor is not the law, and | know that
your Honor, in listening to this case,
considered most of the propositions
cited and have decided most OF them
in your own mind. When
your Honor, on that trial, refused to
grant these defendants continuance,
| knew
YOU HAD DONE RIGHT"
Mr.. Mayer then took up the legal
propositions involved in the first por-
ton of Mr.. Boyce's address, starting
with the question of continuance, and
made a strong review of the position
OF the State.
Mr. Mayer was followed by Mr.. How
ard, who said the grounds for new
trial appeared to rest upon five points:
/. The refusal of the motion for a
continuance; 2, the refusal of change
of venue; 3, some objections to the in
structions; 4, the objection to Mr.. How
ards address to the jury, and 5, that
verdict of guilty of murder in the
first degree could not be found upon
the indictment. He promised to con-
slider these points, with the sole pur-
pose of aiding the Court to a. proper
conclusion, and would take up the
points in the order he had stated them.
On the subject of the refusal OF a
continuance, Mr.. Howard thought the
Court was right, then and now. Annie
Reilly was in Court long before she
was called, and therefore there was no
hardship to the defense.
As to the refusal of
CHANGE OF VENUE,
he also thought the Court was right;
although, of course, your Honor has
had time to reflect" Mr. Howard gave
this point some consideration, saying
there was no affirmative evidence that
there was prejudice in the community
The newspapers were introduced, not
ably a copy of the Register, giving
history of the defendants. Your Hon
or would have to conclude that those
publications prejudiced the public
mind. Your Honor is not to conclude
that any man who read those reports
would conclude that the defendants
ought to be hanged. The average
reader reads newspaper reports, partic-
ularly of a sensational nature, with a
grain of salt, and | say that without
rejecting upon the newspapers, for
they often fall into error. YfaA your
Honor say that any of the newspaper
reports were so untrue as to prejudice
the public mind to the extent that
there should have been a change OF
venue?" Mr.. Howard said some of the
veniremen had said they had formed
and expressed an opinion, or had pref
udice, but that did not
INJURE THE DEFENSE
so long as such men did not get on
the jury, and if twelve fair men could
be found in the community, there could
be no good reason for a. change of
venue. The examination of jurors
demonstrated that there should not
have been a change of venue. Even
counsel for defense was satisfied with
the jury. They got a fair
jury and therefore there was no