The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1901-12-10
vo1,ne,s Case Argued.

the murder of Washington Hunter, which
was carried to the Court of Errors ano
Appeals, was argued before that body
Yesterday. Six reasons were given why
the Judgment of the court below should
he reversed and new trial granted.
The first reason was the stereotypeo
one of the admission OF illegal evidence.
The second was that the court allowed an
alleged confession to be admitted ana
read to the jury ,s., 49,.
court against the objection OF the de1end-
amt admitted and allowed evidence to be
0iven TO show that Charles Brown, while
confined in Sing Sing prison, was exam
ined by the prison physician, who found
evidences of gun shot wound IN his leg,
and because said physician while giving
his testimony was allowed to produce,
show and explain before the jury sketch
made by him of the location OF said
wound in the leg of the said Charles
Brown. which evidence was illegal and
inadmissible in the law, wherefore, IN
this, there was manifest error
The fourth reason was because the
court, in charging the jury among, otner
things said: I'm regard to the confession
have this to say by way of advice, leav-
ing it within your power to use your own
Judgment in the matter but feeling 1t my
duty to advise YOU; and that is, the court
who is charging you has been unable 10
see wherein the fact that Keller stated,
in the presence of Young, that ne had
confessed or made statement to the eI-
feet that Young had said there was TWO
thousand dollars, or they would nnu TWO
thousand dollars in Hunters house, con-
stituted either promise or threat or
fraud upon Young. Assuming thaC Wheh
Young was in the station house Titus,
having had from Keller statement about
this affair (Which is an established fact
because it is testified to without any con
tradiction) and assuming that Titus then
asked Keller again, in the presence OF
Young. whether he had not said that, and
Kellar said that he had, so that Young
was fully apprised about what Keller
had said about that the court has been
unable to see in what way that was I'M
| fair to the defendant. l can see tnaG IL
the police captain had concealed or kept
back what had happened and had given
Young to understand Keller had not MADE
any statement when in point OF TACT ne had
Il can understand that that would have
been falsehood and fraud; but when
the captain tells Young that Keller has
made statement that is true, and when,
instead of attempting to repeat what ne
considered material part OF 1t, he lets
Keller himself state, in Young's presence,
what was this fact about his statement as
to the $4,000 which he had previously
made to the police captain, l nave Deen
unable to see in what way that was un.
fair to Young 1t was concealment OF
nothing and was merely apprlslng MIN IN
the most direct way of matter tnat had
already happened and which at the same
time he was entitled to know. L, there-
| fore, advise you, in looking at tnat Dranch
of the case and in reviewing the manner
in which Young gave. his confession, that
if YOU reach the conclusion which the
court did that Keller and Young met
each other for the purpose of having KEEL
Ter state over again, in Titus and Youngs
presence what he had previously said to
Titus. I advise you to look closely at that
and see wherein it was either fraud or
threat or promise which would have the
effect of making Young make the con
fession which is before you when IL was
not the truth. So that you Will take the
confession and consider it and the clrcum
stances surrounding it, and II you uecer-
mine that it was procured Without lnl
nroner methods and that it IS the truth,
then. of course, you are to give IL weight
in determining just what happened prior
to and upon the night OF the muruer Vi
Hunter To this portion OF the charge
defendants counsel take exceptions on
the ground that it was unlawful and pre-
judicial and injurious to the defendant.
The fifth exception is probably the one
TO which the greatest Importance is al.
tached 1t touches upon the degree Oh
the crime. In his charge Judge Garrison
said: ''Now as to the degree OF muroer-
the law fixes that. Generally you Know
in cases where the statute has not pro-
vided otherwise, murder OF the hrst Ge-
gree depends upon whether the jury De-
Iieve that there was the intent to take
life, that it was premedltated ana Wlilul'
but in the class of cases in which this one
falls all of that is removed from the jury.
The legislature has itself provided just
what shall be your verdict in case you
find these facts. In the first place II you
find the fact that the defendant was a
BURGLAR in the sense that he was part OF
the crime of burglary there committed,
then the law SAYS the killing was murder;
and the next section of the statute says
that a killing that occurs while burg
lary is being committed shall not only be
murder but it shall be murder of the first
degree. Nothing else is to be found by
the Jury excepting that the killing was
by one who was within the definition L
have given you-one of the burglars. SO
that there cannot be any verdict against
this defendant other than that of murder
of the first degree. The only other YER
dict may be not guilty.
The sixth reason is merely general de-
claration that judgment should be given
Young.
Prosecutor Atkinson replied to the above
arguments, He claimed that the first and
sixth assignments were general in their
| character and did not need argument. On
the contention that there was error IN the
admission of the confession Mr.. Atkinson
showed there was no inducement of any
character held out to Young and that he
was warned that whatever he said would be
used against him. The confession was not
admitted until the court had satisfied IT.
self of certain matters in this connection.
Touching the point of the admission OF
testimony about Browns wound Mr.. At
kinson it was absolutely necessary to prove
this in order to corroborate the testl
: mOny of Keller, who gave information Oh
that point. That the court erred in charg
ing on the degree of murder Mr. Atkinson
said was not tenable. The law on this
matter is very clear and no other charge
could have been delivered.
! The argument for the defendant was
made by Eckard p. Budd, that for The
S state by Prosecutor Atkinson.
The Court announced that decision
,,o,,ld no randpred on January h.