Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1899-12-21


a lighted lamp in his hand. He came down
went into the kitchen and picked up some
thing and put it under his arm and went
out through the front door An examina-
ton of the first a ,or showed that the cellar
door had been opened and the table near it
moved and the looking glass also moved
1t was moonlight night, but the curtains
were down and it was dark in the house.
She did not know whether the cellar win
dow was down or up in the afternoon. A
penknife was picked up about two feet
from Rich's head
The cross examination of Mrs. Ramm by
Mr. Watkins brought out some new facts.
She said that Rich had knife and be had
asked her for something to sharpen it with.
He was mending her husbands shoes
Between the first and second shots she
heard someone moving from the front to
the back room. A question by Mr.. Wat
kins as to VIII. Their the wife of the defend
ant did not expect man to come to
Ramm's house was objected to by the
prosecutor, but was admitted. The answer
was that the wife OF the defendant said
that & a man by the name of Charlie Mann
Charles Mann was Mrs. HOugh's first
husband She married Hough while Mann
was serving time in PRISON., was coming
to see her, and that 8 Mr. Rich wanted to
come there TO get even with the defendant
and so did Nj Manu. She said that the
wife of the defendant was corresponding
with Mr.. Mann unknown to the defendant.
The witness told the defendant some time
before that man named Rector was COM
ing with Rich to see the wife of the defend
ant. Rector and Mann were the same
person. Defendants wife told her she had
wiped blood off the knife found in the
room where Rich's body was found. Before
going to bed she looked out the window
and saw the defendant passing on the
street.
DIR. E Sharpless Hall, of University OF
Penna., testified that red spots on a red
table cover and a cloth found in Richs
room were human blood.
Mrs. Rachel Holmes, of Paulsbnro, was
at Ramm's house on Friday. She saw the
defendant and Rich there on that day. The
wife of the defendant told the witness to
tell her if she saw the defendant coming so
Rich could hide. The defendant was in
the house but few minutes. On Sunday
she was at Ramm's house until eight
o'clock in the evening She helped fasten
up, putting down the back windows and
placing sticks over them. Front windows
were left up with stationary screens in
them. She came back shortly after the
shooting and went upstairs and saw Rich
lying on the Fl. or and the wife of the de-
PENDANT sitting by. The table and one
chair had been moved and there were
spots of blood on the looking glass In
the morning the side cellar window was
hoisted with a stick under it. She saw
stains on door Amb leading from the back
room to the front room. and blood on the
floor leading to the front door from the
kitchen door. Ga Saturday afternoon Rich
half soIed a pair of shoes for Mr.. Ramm
and asked for a knife to trim them. She
gave him a case knife, but he said it was
too dull, then he sharpened his own knife
the one found beside his body-and used
that to trim the soles.
FRIDAYS proceeding.
Freddie Fink. Elmer Aim, De Lane
Armstrong, j Ohm w Devault, Bruno Flack
Harry Horner. their testimony being con-
cIuded at 10 80 We omit other testimony,
because in view OF the peculiar closing Of
the tIiaI it was unimportant.
ne VI ll1E En- Ds
Mr.. Watkins, defendants counsel, stated
that he desired to make motion to the
Court before opening the defence, and the
Judge and attorneys adjourned to the
judges room.
Mr.. Watkins there argued to the court,
that from the testimony produced by the
State, verdict of murder in the first
degree could not be rendered by the jury,
because the element of reasonable doubt to
which defendant was entitled had not been
removed. The State had not proved, he
said, that Hough went TO the Ramm house
to kill Rich in fact he went for his wife,
and had no intention Of doing Rich harm
until he was attacked by Rich with a knife,
then he shot him on prOvocation.
CHANGES HIS PLEA
After conference with Prosecutor Starr
the officers returned to the court room, and
Lawyer Watkins announced that the
prisoner desired to change his plea of not
guilty to one of non volt contendere,
(which is not guilty but will not con-
tend excusing him from first degree
punishment. Hough then formally changed
his plea, and Justice Garrison, after an
nouncing the Prosecutors aequiescence to
the change of the plea, turned to the jury
and said: This action renders il unneces-
sary for your detention any longer. The
effect of the trial progressing before You
would have been to leave an open issue as
to murder of the first degree in this case.
THE DEGREE OF MURDER.
Murder of the first degree differs from
murder in the second degree in that the
State must prove for murder of the first
degree the specific intention of the defend
ant to take life, and in this case the Court
after conference with the Prosecutor and
after hearing the views of counsel as
signed to defend, has come to the con-
clusion that. inasnuch as every part of the
crime of murder of the first degree must
be proved beyond doubt, the jury could
not properly say that beyond reasonable
doubt they found a purpose to take life
either in the entrance of the defendant
into this house or in the shooting, which
occurred under the circumstances that can
be surmised from the States testimony.
The Court finds that the Jury might
say that they thought so, but that, if they
came to analyze the testimony, and that
what might also be said as to other mo
tives less than taking liie-other motives
that arise from the relation OF husband and
wife-and from the other conditions in the
case that, after weighing all of those, while
they still might find verdict Of that kind
the Court would not be SO satisfied that il
was beyond reasonable doubt to the
contrary, that they would allow the verdict
to stand.
II that course were taken, and the
Court allowed the case to 20 on, if the
Prosecutor insisted upon this case going
on, and it went to the jury and they should
find verdict Of murder of the first degree
the Court would in all probability have tC
act it aside and order another trial
All of this is presented by the coDjoini
action of the attorneys, both of whom il
this case are appointed by the State, anc
whose conduct OF the case, both on the par
Of the Prosecutor and of the defendant, bal
been admirable beyond all praise that tn,
Court could express. You are discharged
THR JURY DISCHARGED.
As the Court announced the discharge O
the jury, Hough grasped bis counsel by thi
hand and shook it fersently, while tear
filled bis eyes.
Addressing counsel. Justice Garrison
asked whether the defendant desired 10 b.
examined by the Court in regard 10 hi
sentence, and Ex-Governor Watkins as
swered in the affirmative, adding that b,
had other testimony to c0froborate th.
defendants story Of the crime.