Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-06-22

| Arxumenta Made In the Case OF
/ State W. w. }. COtts-Other First
! Circuit Matters Disposed Of Yes-
/ terday.
| 1t was late yesterday afternoon when
the case of State VS.. John Mooney and
j Frank Friday was reached upon the
/ docket OF the Supreme Court
! for the First Judicial Circuit.
The arguments were very in
teresting. Col. w. w. Arnett appeared
tor the appellants and Frank w. Mes
bitt and John A. Howard for the State.
The opening argument was made by
Col Arnett.
Col. Arnett based his proceedings for
! a new trial upon three grounds. The
f11t was the fact that the defendants
were refused, when they made their mo-
ton before the trial judge, the privilege
of being rer1anded for preliminary ex-
animation. Col Arnett argued that this
was an error as a man arrested for a
crime is entitled to prompt prelimi-
nary hearing. He elaborated upon shis
point at some length.
The second reason he advanced was
Mr. Towards invitation to Mooney,
while he was making his argument to
the jury, to stand up and wear the
handkerchief mask, that the jury might
see how easy it would be to identity
him.
The third reason was because the de-
PENDANTS, by their affidavit, had shown
that witnesses were intimidated during
the trial. He referred to the arrest Of
Dukes Reilly. and others, and said
, they were thrown into Jail and brought
from Jail into the court room to testify,
and were thereby discredited. Col. Ar
nett also made a reference to the af-
fdavit of Marshall county man, that
he answered the description of John
Mooney, and that he was in Elm Grove
on the day the murder was committed.
Mr.. F. W. Nesbitt replied to Col. Ar
nett, speaking about twenty-five min
utes. He said the act requiring a pre-
liminary examination by the County
Court had been repealed in 1875 and
there was no law req6iring prelimi-
| nary hearing With reference to the
invitation to wear the handkerchief
mask, he said the defendants had testi-
fed in the case, and it was therefore moi
error to ask them to give evidence
against themselves. With reference 70
the affidavit of the defendants Mr.. Mes
too late, nearly a month after the mo-
ton for new trial had been argued aid
submitted, and that therefore it should
not be considered by the appellate
court. He also called attention to the
fact that the trial judge certified thar
| the statements made in the affidavit OF
Mooney and Friday were not true.
Hon. John A. Howard, who assisted il
the prosecution of Mooney and Friday,
followed Mr.. Nesbitt. He pointed OUT
the fact that, although the evidence was
not certified, the record did show tha.
the Supreme Court was considering the
case of two masked murderers. He ar
gued that no constitutional or sta.u-
tory right could be shown to have been
| violated by the refusal to grant Mooney
and Friday a preliminary examination
The constitutional requirement that the
| defendant be fully and clearly inform
ed of the charge against him, is COM
piled with when he is brought before a
! court on proper indictment.
Mr.. Howard argued that 1t was no vio-
| lation OF the defendants rights, to ask
| him to put on a mask which had al
| ready been introduced in evidence. He
distinguished that request from eases
in which traps are manufactured, and
| the defendants invited to step into them.
| On the subject Of the affidavit. Mr.
hHoward said it showed upon its face
that it was false. The defendants swore
that they were informed and believed
that witnesses were inundated, when
even to save their own lives they
! couldn't say who had informed them.
| When Mr.. Howard concluded his ar
| gument, Court adjourned until this
| morning, when Col. Arnett will close
the case for the appellants.
The case of T. NJ. Darrah vs.. Wheel
ing Ice and Storage Company was ar
gued and submitted.
Arguments were made in the morning
in the case of State VS.. w. j. Colts.
Cots was convicted of forging the name
of John G. Haberfield to a note for
5000, and was sentenced to three years
in the State prison. Howard Holt APP
peared for Cots, and ex-Prosecuting
Attorney W. C. Meyers and S. o. Boyce
for the State.
The appellant claimed. through coun-