Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1905-06-23

Judge Butler, in opening the argument
ior the respondent, stated that he real
| lzed that nothing but a federal question
would be recognized by the court. His
argument was, in substance as follows.
Our statutes provide that in capital
cases, upon a petition for a new trial.
the sentence OF execution shall be stayed.
II the supreme court allows the petition
to be filed. They provide that II the ne
tiuon is heard and dismissed the supreme
court shall fix the time when the eye
cution shall be carried out In this case
the supreme court dismissed the petition
Tor a new trial, but failed to nix the date
LOT the execution. We claim that the
ming or the petition gave the supreme
court jurisdiction to fix the time. and that
IN this particular matter the respondent
has had no opportunity to be heard
Wheh the case went to the supreme
court on the petition for a new trial the
eAeculon OF the sentence of the county
Sourt was stayed by an operation OF law.
no one but the supreme court had the
power to fix the time for the execution
Inc governor has attempted to Az n Inv
way OF reprieve, but he has not the pow
er to do So"
Judge Butler then took up the oues-
ton OF the constitutionality OF the Yer
sttV. supreme court under the state con-
stituuon, which provides" he said
that supreme courts shall be maintains5
IN every county in the state" He said
IN part; There is no supreme court In
the county OF Bennington. under tha ion-
o. lsS2' which fixed the citus az that
SDurt IN Montpelier. in the county az
washington. The county court is no. =
court OF final Jurisdiction. hut the 70
spondent has had no opportunity no q
supreme court as a court OF review mr.
NIueu TOT by the Constitution ana laws
a. mere rs no such court In Bennington
oouhty. Inc respondent is being executed
on. warrant OF the county court with
- chance 10 have the law questions
raised in the county court settlAd ~, tts
court OF appeals. Therefore the iudg-
nlent Is not final and the execution Js
sueu from that court is void. No re-
Prieve can nix the time OF execution unon
Noio process, and that is not due nro-
S, Sos VI Jaw and the law taking the sal-
Preme court away from Bennineto,
county abridges the respondents rieht 90
States" vi the United
=, Al the beginning OF his argument for
me state attorney General Fits said ttot
heI hao had no time to prepare for the
ersI as, having peen engaged for sew
go. 80. uays In murder trial. NotNith-
standing that, Mr. Fits was abla 10 liz
numerous cases bearing on the ouest,o,ss
tglseu ana 70 make a strong argument
ne cahed the courts attention 10 th,
~ Ease Ease reported in volume ISs Of
.na.,, Snl.eo states reports, in which the |
uon and laws relating thereto ar ~
no De Questions for the state courts a,ons
~, Durrant case, in volume 1ea no.
cited In which all questions relatins. wa was
say OF execution and re-sentencing a ps
saS on t are held TO be questions solely
nndar se1 courts. He argued that.
unuer decision OF the United statas g.
preme court that the writ OF error ,' GU
ne 70 the highest court Of a state x.,1,,cS
, mas jurisdiction, II the court az hiehsa.
in this state Is the conn,S
court as the counsel for the respondan,