The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-09-18
DENY PETITION
OF MORTENSEN
Supreme Court judges Refuse to
Reopen His Case.
MEMBERS WERE UNANIMOUS
MORSE WILL NOW SENTENCE
DEFENDANT AGAIN.
MEMBERS WERE UNANIMOUS

Peter Mortenseu's petition for re-
hearing of his case before the state su-
preme court was denied by that body
shortly after O'Clock yesterday after
noon. Either today or tomorrow Clerk
Palmer will certify the ruling of the
court down to the district court. 1t
wiz then be the duty of Judge Charles
W. Morse. who tried OIortensen. to pass
the death sentence upon him again, and
at the same time fix the date for the
execution.
Stewart & Stewart the attorneys for
MOrtensen, it is understood, win then
move for a new trial. probably on the
ground Of newly discovered evidence.
Should Judge Morse refuse to entertain
or grant the motion. an exception viii
be entered and another appeal taken TO
the state supreme court The various
legal steps attendant upon the appeal
to the highest tribunal in the state viii
act as stay of execution.
Bench Was Unanimous.
It is a rule Of the supreme court not
TO hand down written opinion when
the motion TO rehear case is denied
But in the MOrtensen case Associate
Justice McCarty thought it advisable
to write one which he did. He was the
judge who gave the attorneys for Nor
Jensen permission to submit a brief in
support of their petition for a rehear-
ing. Although the names of Chief JUS
tice Baskin and Associate Justice
Bartch are not signed to the opinion
written by Associate Justice McCarty.
they concur with him in denying the
petition.
The attorneys sought to obtain a new
trial for their client by showing that
Judge Morse erred in not permitting
them to introduce oral testimony in
support of their first motion for 4 new
trial. The alleged error of the trial
judge was argued at length in the petit
ton for a rehearing Of the case. In his
opinions Associate Justice McCarty
holds that no error was committed by
Judge Morse ia that particular in
stance. The opinion Of Associate Jus
tice McCarty is as follows:
Opinion Of Supreme Court
A petition for a rehearing has been filed
in this case The principal ground upon
which the motion is based is that the
court below Overruled a motion TO per
NIT the defendant to introduce oral tes-
timOny in support of an allegation in
their motion Of misconduct on the part
of the jury while viewing the premises
Of the defendant and those where the
body of the deceased was found
The record shows that at the concur
sion Of the reading of the affidavits filed
and counter affida Wits filed by the state.
the court ruled that the affidavits I'm
support of the motion were insufficient
to authorize the court 20 permit the in
PRODUCTION of oral testimony I'm support
. OF 1t. whereupon counsel for defendant
stated. orally. to the court that Royal
b. Young. one OF the officers I'm charge
of the jury. while viewing the aforesaid
premises, pointed out to the Jury where
certain blood stains were found. and that
the same officer while escOrting the
jurors over the premises of defendant
was asked certain questions about the
condition in which said premises were at
the time the body Of the deceased was
discovered, and talked about other mat
/ ters that had been brought out in evil
dence on me trial of the case.
Counsel for the defendant further stat
ed to the court that the officer ROYAL b
Young, who was present in court at the
time, refused TO make affidavit as to
! what he knew respecting the conduct OF
! the jurors on that occasion.
Oral Testimony Ruled Out.
Counsel, in concluding his remarks
/ said as follows: