The San Francisco call., 1899-08-02
MURDERER HOFF
HAS ANOTHER
SHOW FOR LIFE
Given a New Trial by
Supreme Court.
JUDGE WALLACE'S ERRORS
DISCUSSED TOO MANY FACTS IN
STEAD OF THE LAW.
Mrs. Mary A. Clute's Slayer Has His
Neck Temporarily Saved on
Account of Techni-
calities.
DISCUSSED TOO MANY FACTS IN
STEAD OF THE LAW.

The Supreme Court has granted to AL
bert neseneckockockhoff, otherwise
known as Albert Hoff, condemned to be
hanged for murder, a new trial. The crime
for which he was adjudged guilty and SEN
fenced to suffer the extreme penalty OF
the law is still fresh in the minds OF most
Of the people OF this city, and eSpec!ally
those living in the Mission. Mrs. Mary
Augusta Clute moved from Fell street 10
new residence on Guerrero street, near .
carpets That was on December 10, 1897.
Later in the day the unfortunate woman
was found dead in one of the rooms. She
had been beaten to death with some blunt
instrument, supposed TO be a hammer.
Hoff was seen going to the place, ana WIZ
nesses saw him depart, yet no one Wit
messed the shocking crime. He was ar
rested, and though the evidence against
him was strong it was purely ,circqIm-
stantial. The trial took place before Su-
perior Judge Wallace;
While the links in the chain of evidence
still the motive of the crime, if he was the
murderer, was missing and this formed
one of the most important features of the
case being sent back to the lower court
for a new trial The appeal was based
upon the rulings complained Of which re
lated to the giving or refusing to give In
of the lower court the higher tribunal
says:
Here the court tells the jury that
there are two main facts to be made
crime has been committed. and. sec
ond that the defendant committed it;
and then proceeds to discuss the i'm
portanCe of the proof of motive. 1t
is recognized that motive is not the ul-
innate fact to be proven, but the proof
or disproof of any motive or induce
ment to commit the crime is merely
evidentiary in its character, but is an
important consideration, especially in
a case depending upon circumstantial
evidence
The only matter of law In all this
is that the motive is not the ultimate
fact to be proven, and. of course, lit
would follow from this that If the COM
mission of the crime by the defendant
be sufficiently proven it does not mat
ter whether there appears to nave been
a motive or not. This is certainly true
in this class Of cases. The presence
or absence of motive is matter of cor
roboraton-or, rather. 1t makes other
evidence more or less persuasive. II
increases or diminiSheS the presump-
tion of innocence, and in this case II
would have no other function. And this
is recognized in the charge, when new
ertheless proceeds to tell the jury how
difficult it is to prove motive, and
states that 1T may be in many cases
impossible to show or to establish a mo-
tive, for the reason that we cannot
fathom the mind of the accused on
trial and ascertain if there is not
hidden desire of vengeance or some
passion to be gratified: besides, there is
no rule of law which determines what
is or what is not an adequate motive,
even II II were necessary 10 SNOW Oilt
Applying this to the case, the jury
were told that although the prosecu-
ton might not be able to prove 1t, the
defendant may have had "a hidden de-
sire of vengeance or some passion to
be gratified.' This was not a statement
of a rule of law, but an argument
against the defendant on the facts, and
the court proceeds al some length with
this argument to the jury, claiming
that it is often impossible for the pros
ecution to prove the motive, though
one existed Section 10, Article
VI of the constitution reads as follows:
Judges shall not charge juries with
respect to matters of fact, but may
state the testimony and declare the
law"
Justice Mcfarland dissented. but wrote
no opinion. Justice Garoutte wrote dis
sentfng opinion, in which he stated that
while he considered the charge by the
trial Judge to be too long, he did not be
Iieve that the jury was misguided by the
courts remarks. The Justice says that
while he will always stand for the pro-
lection of the interests of any one COM
ing before the higher court, he does not
think it necessary to cut too close to the
line of technicalities for the purpose of
finding some flaw in the work of the low