New-York tribune., 1900-07-29

JUSTICE DUGRO ASKED FOR AN ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY A PEREMPToRY MAN
DAArus SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED.
H s. Marshall OF the law firm of Weeks, Battle
& Marshall counsel for Roland B. Molineu1. ap-
piled to Justice Dugro IN the Supreme Court, yes
terday. for order to show cause why a
perenptory writ Of mandamus should not issue to
compel Recorder Gon to settle the proposed case
on appeal IN the appeal 10 the Court Of Appeals by
Mo!ineux against his conviction for murder in the
first degree, on February 16 last and subsequent
sentence OF death. General Molineux occupied a
seat in court beside Afr Marshall and listened in
tently TO the argument made by his counsel
Mr Marshall submitted AFFIDAVIT by George
Gordon Battle OF counsel for Moneux in which
he said that the defendant through his counsel on
March IS last began to serve copies Of his proofs
on the case on appeal and bill or exceptions to
the judicial rulings the trial, and served the
same IN patches OF from 200 to 400 pages each until
Nav when Il was completed
From that date counsel for Molineux had re-
peatedly requested and demanded Of the District
Attorney that he serve his proposed amendments
TO the case on appeal so that the appeal could be
presented to the Court OF Appeals at the earliest
opportunity The District Attorney did July
~ and counsel moved on the following day to settle
the same before the Recorder, and submit to him
the proofs OF the case and the amendments thereto
by the District Attorney. On July q all the neces-
eary papers were served the Recorder and Dis
tr1ct Attorney. and the Recorder informed
that such amendments as were not objected to by
the defendant were assented TO by him. None Of
the proposed amendments Mr.. Marshall said
would require serious consideration, nor would the
settlement Of the case by Recorder Con occupy any
considerable time. He understood that the Re
eorder intended leaving the city Immediately his
vacation, and would not return until November
next II was charged in the appeal that he erred
on the trial in admitting illegal and excluding legal
testimony and that his charge was prejudicial to
the defendant
Should the Recorder 60 away hts vacation"
counsel said 'ft will mean the delay IN getting
the case before the Court OF Appeals OF six
months"
Justice Dugro said he did not see what difference
n would make 'Tt must appear to the Court" he
added that the Recorder has been guilty Of either
negligence IN the performance of his duties. has
refused 10 perform them. Nothing of this kind
appears in your papers
Mr. Marshall said the Recorder had stated he
would leave the consideration OF the until his
return IN November.
He has only said So" Justice Dugro observed
''You have made demand him TO settle the
case on appeal"
9 dn M PS to ger Ps hsg s4psot 4SS tfes #
nent, and Of that treatment we complain, basing
application on the right OF the defendant TO
speedy trial. and making such application against
IN the death chamber al Sing Sing, where he is at
present for six months. when two days would
''Of course" Justice Dugro put IN. your affidavit
contains no statement that the Recorder settle
No; but It shows that very little work IS re-
ouired TO DO so' Mr.. Marshall said
In reply 70 the Court counsel said the case on ap-
peal prepared behalf Of AoineuI contained more
than four thousand pages. and that It took nearly
three months before it was served on the District
Attorney.
'And how long did It take the District Attorney
70 make Up his amendments 10 your case?' Justice
DugTO inquired.
About the same time" was the reply.
And you and the District Attorney took three
months each 10 make UP your cases. and you
pect the Recorder to go through both your papers
and decide the matter Ea two days Nv present
iT1pr e fa n on
Mr. Marshall asked for time TO submit brief
and the Court allowed It