Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1900-01-28
THERE WAS NO VERDICT
IN THE MURDER CASE OF STATE
VS.. JOSEPH DRILLER,
LAST NIGHT.
A NEW TRIAL NECESSARY.
The Arguments Made Yesterday
Morning. and the Jury Went Out
at $40 p. NAT 11:4O Last Night
They Reported They Could Not
Agree-WiiI Be Another Trial of
the Case.

Driller, charged with killing Louis Dit
more, announced that they could not
agree upon verdict, and were dis
charged from further consideration Of
the case. There was q quite large au-
dience in the Court room during the
entire evening, and there was a lively
interest in the proceedings.
The day was opened with the argu-
ments Of counsel, Mr.. J. B. Handlan
making the initial argument on behalf
of the State. He was followed by Mr.
/ ]. B. Wilson, for the defense, he by
Mr.. Boyce, and the discussion was clos
ed by Prosecuting Attorney Meyer.
The addresses to the Jury were all able
and logical, each of the speakers doing
their best to make the most of the evil
dence at hand. Following the argu-
ments the instructions to the jury were
agreed upon and submitted, and at 8: 10
p. m. the twelve men retired % their
room. AT six o'clock no verdict had
been reached, and the jury was adj
journed until evening, a night session
being announced
A few minutes before nine o'clock
the jury sent word 10 the court room
that it wished to be enlightened upon
that portion of the evidence relating
to the duration Of time the remains
were in the water. Counsel were
summoned and the matter was discuss
ed with the Court. Mr. Nesbitt tenn
porarily representing the State, in the
absence Of Messrs. Meyer and HandIan
Mr.. Boyce, for defense, said he would
object unless at the same time an
answer was made to Juror Martin,
who enquired. before the jury went
out, as 10 how deceased was dressed,
he having read in an unreliable and
sensational evening paper that the
body was naked when found. Counsel
for the State did not see the connec-
ton between the two matters, and after
some discussion Mr.. Boyce waived his
objection and the jury was brought in,
and were formally enquired of as to
whether or not a verdict had been
being in the negative. The Court then
asked what was wanted, when the
foreman said:
Your Honor. We can't get together
unless we have the evidence as to how
long the body was in the river read
to us
The Court directed that this be done,
and Mr. Shrader read as follows:
Direct
Q.-Was there anything to enable
you to infer how long ago that (the
wound on the abdomen) had been in
flicted? A.-To determine positively,
no person could do it; but, in my opin-
ion, the man had been dead for five
to fourteen hours.
O.-From five to fourteen hoursy
A.-But that cannot be positively de-
termined.
Q.-Not as a matter of science? A
No.
Oft may have been longer than
that? A.-Yes-it may have been long
err. We do not know what condition
the water he was in. He might have
fioated to some place where the water
was extremely cold, and in doing so IT
would have preserved the body.
O.-Would you make the same state
nnent in regard to the wound up mere
at the windpipe? Ayes; the wounds
on all of his body, I would judge, were
made about the same time. They all
presented the same appearance-ali
but the one on the medal line OF his
nose which was a scar which had been
inflicted before.
Cross-examination by Mr.. Boyce:
O.-Doctor, when you delivered your
evidence at the autopsy examination
AT the examination before the coroner,
Squire Lacey, in Benwood, you VIII
remember was present? Ayes, sir.
O.--You remember that you testl-
fed there that the body could not
have been in the water more than
seven hours A-From seven TO four
teen.
O.-Why have you changed 1t from
FIVE to fourteen? A-Why changed?
I don't lust remember. Five to four
teen-seven to fourteen is very little
difference, as far as that is concerned.
O.-Dont you remember you did
not give any minimum or maximum?
You said that from the appearance OF
the body. he could not have been in
the water more than seven hours. A.
i said in my opinion he couldn't.
Gould not have been IN the
water more than seven hours? A.
No: from seven to fourteen hours.
Odd you take that on that
paper? Ayes, sir.
Q-Is that the same paper you had
down there? Ayes, sir.
Q.-Look at that. A.-(Referring to
paper)-I have wrote on here from
seven to ten hours" That is only an
estimate that no person could possibly
say.
This, the foreman said was entirely
satisfactory, and the jury again retired
to their room, while the large audi
ence settled down to wait for the YER
dict, while the defendant chatted with
his brother, not appearing much wor-
ried over the situation.
At II o'clock the julT was brought
into court, but no AGREEMENT had been
reached, and the court sent them