The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-01-11
QUAYS PETITION REFUSED
BY the Supreme Court of pcnusv,.
raHia-1He Case S0W Gors Back 10
the Quarter Sessions Court.

BY the Supreme Court of PcnusyI.
raHia-lHe Case S0W G0rs Back 10
the Quarter Sessions Court.
PHILADELPHIA, Pa, Jan. lo.-The
supreme court to-day in an opinion
handed down by Chief Justice Sterrc,,
dismissed the application In the ouay
conspiracy case for writ Of cer,iorarl
and placed the costs on the petitioners
The petition of the defendants, United
States Senator NJ. s. Quay, Il. Il. QUAY.
and Benjamin ]. Haywood. avrrred thu,
Gse account Of Political prcjudiccs thcy
were of the belief TINT ther could no,
obtain a fair and impartial trial In tho
Philadelphia court ot quarter sessIons
when the suit against them was instI-
tuted.
There was no dissenting opinion, Th.
charge against the defendants Is ,hnt a,
conspiracy with John S. HOPKINS, the
cashier OF the Peoples Bank (who
committed suicide In March lnsO
in the misuse of state fundson dcposi, In
that bank, The defendants were placed
under arrest In October last and as n
result of u preliminary hearing entered
bali for trial.
The court In Its opinion holds that +.
has no authority 10 review the action OF
the court below on the demurrers and
the motion to quash. The court saws
the only other contention Of tho petl-
TONERS that require notice IL that they
cannot have a fair and impartial trial
In the court OF quarter sessions Of Phil
adelphia county, where the indictments
are SIN pending on Issues OF fact raised
By the defendants pleas OF mot
gulltg." On this point the court says:
I'VE cannot assent to this proposition.
On the contrary, We are satisfied that
the petitioners can and will have a fair
and impartial trial in that court before
competent and unprejudiced Judge
and fair and impartial jury. II we
thought otherwise, We would not hest
tate Il moment 10 send the Indictment Ia
another jurisdiction for trial
The learned judges who by virtue OF
their commissions as judges OF the four
separate common pleas courts Ut this
count: are Judges OF the courts OF Oyer
and Tcrminer and quarter sessions o.
the peace. etc. are twelve In number
and sit In said courts In pursuance OF
previous assignment under the cOast!-
tutl3aal provision.
Under this arrangement the, judges
who held the criminal courts In Novem-
Der last will probably not be required TO
sit therein f0r several months thereaf-
ter. OF the twelve judges who thus In
turns hold the criminal courts. only
two are subjects OF complaint in = the
petition for the rule One OF these
(Judge Gordon) resigned his commits
sion, and thus severed his connection
with the common pleas courts before
the petitioners filed their demurrers and
motion 10 quash. AS 70 what he Is al
legged TO have done while he held his
commission. 1t is difficult to say what.
if any effect Il may have in preventing
or even tending to prevent the petition
ers from having fair and impartial
trial before either of the other judges
now In commission. The only apparent
objections to the other learned judge
(Finletter) who rightly took the place OF
his colleague when the latter reslgrsd,
are that he did not dispose OF the de-
murrers and molten TO quash In the
manner that petitioners claim he should
have done, and that he has son who
sI;Ion IN the district attorneys office.
These objections were uncalled for and
require no comment further than 10 say
that In his opinion overrulng the de-
murrers and denying the motion 10
quash. lie clearly and fearlessly stated
his reasons for so doing and we see no
reason whatever TO question his integ-
rity OF purpose and he Is too well
known and too highly respected In this
community and elsewhere to require
any vlndication at. our hands.
when the twelfth OF December was
agreed upon as the time for trial OF the
indictments It was well understood that
other judges would hold the December
sessions of the criminal courts and
months would probably clapsc before It
would again come the turn OF the fearT-
ed president OF common pleas No. :
(Finletter) to serve In said courts.
When the petition was presented and
rule 70 show cause with stay OF pro-
ceeGngS was granted on December 3.
1925. speedy trial was In prospect on
the following Monday before one OF the
learned Judges then holding the crlinl-
nal courts against neither Of whom was
there then or since breath OF COM
plaint: and we have no reason 10 DOUBT
that fair and impartial jurIes could then
and can now be emPanelled for the tfia!
OF the several indictments.
without further reference 10 other
features of the case. our conclusion is
that there appears to be no suthcient
reason 10 justify the issuance 81 Ger
tiorari The rule to show cause -
therefore discharged and the petition IS
dismissed at the costs OF the nctitloA-