The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-08-13
NEW TRIAL is
DENIED HAWORTH
Must Suffer Death For Killing
NightWatchman Sandal.
NEW EVIDENCE DISCREDITED
LIFE SENTENCE TO BE ASKED oF
BOARD OF PARDoNS.

lick HAWORTH must suffer the
M extreme penalty of the law for
~ killing Thomas Sandal on the
night of March 2S, 1899, at Layton,
Davis county. The supreme court yes
terday afternoon denied him a new
trial. Commenting upon the evidence
submitted in argument for new trial.
the court says:
Newly discovered evidence which is
impeaching is looked upon with equal
distrust as cumulative evidence, and in
neither instance should a new trial be
granted unless it clearly appears that
the newly discovered evidence woulc
probably change the result on a re-
trial" On those grounds the judg-
ment and order overruling the motion
for a new trial is affirmed, and the case
is remanded for further proceedings in
accordance with law"
That means that HawOrth is 10 be ar
raiened for a second time before Judge
BOlapp Tor sentence As is the custom
in this state, he viii be given his pref
erencc of death either by shooting or
hanging. Inasmuch as he chose the
former the first time he was sentenced
he Will probably decide upon the same
fate the second and last time. The date
of execution rests entirely with Judge
ROlapp. As q condemned prisoner is
usually given about six weeks or two
months in which to prepare for death.
the probabilities are that Haworth VIII
not pay the extreme penalty Of tie law
until about Oct. 1.
The decision Of the supreme court in
denying the motion for a new trial,
which was written by Chief Justice
Baskin, reads as follows:
Decision of Supreme Court.
The defendant after his arrest. made a
written confession of the murder with
which he was charged. and was convicted
of murder in the first degree and SEN
fenced TO be shot On appeal, the Judg-
mcnt was affirmed by this court 90 Utah,
49S, and the case remdndeu Tor Lurlhef
proceedings III accordance with law.
Afterwards the defendant under the prO-
visions of subdivision T. section 4S52. re-
vised statutes, 1898, made motion for d
new trial in the court below, on the
ground Of newly discovered evidence
This motion was OVerruled and the &C.
PENDANT again appeals. As the sentence
of death was affirmed on the FORMER ap-
peal, the only question for our considera-
tiOn on the present one is whether the
denial of the motion was an abuse OF
A large number of affidavits and coun-
ter-aftidayitS were introduced upon the
motion. Most of the newly discovered
evidence relied upon by the defendant,
and set out in the affidaV1ts introduced
by him. is acCumulative and the balance
is impeaching.
In the case of the people VS.. Demasters,
100 Cal. G07, the defendant, upon hiss con-
viction for an assault with intent 10 COM
nit mayhem, moved for a new trial UNI
der subdivision Z, section l13l of the Cali
fOrnia criminal code OF which subdivision
Z. section 1852 revised statutes Utah, IS
Il literal transcript In the opinion AZ
firming the order overriding the notion
the court said:
Citation of Authorities
AS has been repeatedly held by this
court a motion for a new trial is ad-
dressed to the sound legal discretion OF
the trial court, and the action OF the lat
ter will not be disturbed, except in an
instance manfesting a clear and unmls-
taxable abuse of such discretion. This
rule is peculiarly applicable to an appli-
ca ton based upon the ground OF newly
discovered evidence. which not only in
wolves an enlarged discretion in the trial
court, but has never been looked upon
with favor, but rather with distrust.
CHobler VS. Cole. 40 Cal. $50: Arnold VS..
Skaggs. 81 Cal. 6S4.) To entitle the plain
tiff TO new trial on this ground il must
appear, among other things, that the new
evidence be not cumulative merely; that
il be such as 10 render different verdict
reasonably probable upon a retrial; and
that the evidence could not. Win reason
able diligence. have been discovered and
produced at the trial.
Newly discovered evidence which is i'm
peaching is looked upon with equal dis
trust as cumulative evidence. and in
neither instance should new trial be
granted unless il clearly appears that
the newly discovered evidence would
probably change the result on a retrial-
IA Ency. Pa. & Pr. IA. Hayne on New
Trial. sec 81.
In the case at bar the newly discovered
evidence does not meet this requirement.
The judgment and order Overruling the
motion for a new trial IS affirmed, and
the case remanded for further proceed
ings in accordance with law.
We concur:
NTfCADrrV