Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-06-21

ore II the Most Notable Sessions
az the Highest Court Held In Re-
cent Years.
That was a notable session Of the
Supreme Court OF Appeals convened
yesterday morning at ten o'clock to
listen to tie. arguments Of counsel in
the appeal case Of Clarence Johnson and
Hugh pevinney, convicted in the Grim
tnal Court of Ohio county of the MUIR
der, on the afternoon OF September 9.
1899. Of Charles Mclaughlin, and SEN
fenced to be hanged. The case comes
up on a writ of error with consequent
demand for new trial. various reasons
being assigned, among them a faulty
Indictment. refusal of an application
for q change Of venue, refusal Of an APP
plication for continuance, bias and
prejudice on the part of the public.
caused by newspaper publications, the
acceptance of jurors who should have
been stood aside, and lastly, but, per-
haps, most important, the celebrated
closing address to the jury on behalf OF
the State by ex-Prosecuting Attorney
John A. Howard.
There was an unusually large attend,
ance of members OF the bar of this and
other counties, as well as many inter-
ested spectators. Among the lawyers
were Col. Robert White, A. j. Clarke,
Congressman B. B. Dovener, Henry M.
Russell, C. P. Flick, ]. B. Handlan, B.
S. Allison, Assistant Attorney General
Alexander Doolan, John A. Howard, S.
o .Boyce. Col. George B. Caldwell, Judge
George e. Boyd, General T. S. Riley,
Hon. Stuart l.. Walker, Col. w. w. Ar
nett, w. p. Robinson, Frank w. Mes
bitt. C. c. Dickey, of Pittsburg, G. R.
e. Gilchrist, w. c. Meyers, Guy r. c.
Allen, James F. Klee, of Wood county,
5. M. Noyes, S. G. Smith, and a number
of others.
After the usual preliminaries and the
transaction of routine business, includ-
ing the calling of the docket and the
passing OF number of cases, to be
orally argued later, the case OF Johnson
and Devinney was called, and Mr..
Boyce, of counsel for the defense, ad-
dressed the Court, prefacing his remarks
with the statement that there were but
two points he wished to discuss seri-
ously one being that the verdict was
contrary to the evidence. He said he
was aware that error would not avail
the defendants unless it was clearly
shown to have been prejudicial. He
aimed to show, he said, that the crime
was either homicide or murder in the
second degree, whereas the verdict was
murder in the first degree. Mr.. Boyce
reviewed the evidence in the case, refer
red to the record, asking the Court to
note particular pages, and the names Of
particular witnesses, and held that
there was not enough evidence to war
rant the conclusion that defendants
5 fred the first shot. He laid particular
stress upon the contention Of defense
that there was but one revolver between
the two defendants, and said the State
eignally claimed to prove it's claim
In that regard. The theory of the State
that deceased was shot in the back was
also controverted. The attention Of the
Court was called to the panel of twenty
from which the jury was drawn, and he
said only six had clearly qualified. Mr..
Boyce finally drew the attention of the
Court to the argument of the gentleman
who assisted the State in the prosecu-
ton, and in doing SO said the case was
hurried to trial, that the newspapers
had given exaggerated accounts of the
affairs, and that public opinion was
aroused to fever heat. Proceeding, he
yaid the address he referred to was one