Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1901-07-25
EASTWOOD TOHANC
Gained Nothing by Taking Ex-
ceptions to the Supreme
Court,
FRIDAY, MARCH, 1903
The Date Fixed by Chief Judge Taft
Supreme Court Did Not Decide Do
herty's Case Decision in La
mobile County Shows Listers
Must Take Proper Oath.

tbat haye bner undar consideration The
dorkot was conc over and lisposition made
AZ oil hu, iuo ,.soe in the roI onoon. These
were taken nm later. Nineteen decisions
were rendered All the Judges were pres
ont
The case Of state We Ch4rcs Dohertv
for murder uotitiou for new trial was no,
tnkop nm This case will 90 over TO the
Santouher term
one of Tho most imnortsnt decisions rem
dered was in tho case of stat, ~. .'re,ler-
,l, Lr,,t,,.,,,d rro,, Al,,so,, County (which
the court took mn when it rccpnveued at
o'clock THIS cuso il ON. that is familiar
ia All Vermont reonln and IT witI he rcmem-
hored that Eastvnod rode from Massa-
chiisctts to East AIiJdleburv and endeavor-
cd 10 XIII All Of hi. relatives hat he coull
find lie first drove TO the home of hi,
uifo.s nathan ,vb.ro ba ,b,t at his wi, n
and her mother irving to Kin them. say
inc that ne had come to brea> up the fam.
ily. Both parties were Injured but not
fatally wounded lie then drove to the
house of one Fem another relative and
sucocedod I'm killing him aud If was for
this last offouse that he wa. tried and con
victcd. The calsc of the ,roulle WAS Oh
account of hie having nre .touely s,narsi .
cd from his vif..
The points considered In the case we're
two.-
First-purinr the trial The state intro
ducad eyidou,. .howirr the attrnnt L..
faS'Wood 10 XII ms VIE ana her moth'r
ana what ne stated AZ the 'ime VIZ That
ne nau com" 10 Freak mp ne whole laln-
ilN as showing intent al the time he shot
i'nh' ne defense "nl''t"1 on the ground
LILY e''u,'lre '' " former rr'me OF a
show a subsequent crime of the same
kind. The court hold that in this case DO h
shootincs were part of IN" same trausac-
ton and therefore the evidence was pro 20
crlV admitted
Soconl-The law proyilos THAT If a re-
spondent pleads insanity. a- did the r.
spondent in this case. that the State shall
have the right to keep him crntincd in IN
/ asylum for the insane in th, State for 4
period of time and that the superintendent.
might testify as To the insanity Of the re-
sp"ndcnt.
The defense objected To this on the
ground that il was unconstitutional b.
cause it would compel the respondent to
furnish evidence against himself. The
, court held that the law was constitution Al
AVID that the evidence was properly ad-
mtt"d. that the respondent could ho con-
fined in any place in the state whore th.
court might designate and wherever the
RESPONDENT was kept evidence rs to hi.
sanity or insanity would be admissible
and therefore tho State had a right TO
condne him in an asylum if it saw It.
Tho respondent took nothing low his ex-
ocptions and after chief Judge ratt had
finished reading the opinion in the case
h. asked the cI,rN Of tho court. NJ f.
Smile to call uron tho RESPONDENT AID
ask If he had any thing 70 say why The
sentence of the law should not now b.
pronounced upon him The respond, 1t
WAS called upon and after being ask. Il
tho question twice hV Clerk Smile before
hc could hear said that he didn't know.
- G.. I,ar II