The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1905-10-04
TO SAVE PATRICK'S LIFE
Old and New Points Raised by
Former Senator Hill.

Hills Comment on Judge Gray as
Being Such as No Degree Of Emil
nence In Counsel Could Render
Respectable.
Albany, Oct. 3.-The case Of Albert
T. Patrick, who since March 26. 1902,
has been under conviction Of the muir.
der Of the aged millionaire, William
Marsh Rice in New York city in 1900.
came again before the court Of ap-
peals yesterday afternoon in an as.
pect as remarkable as any of the pre-
vious phases of this case, which
throughout has been one of the most
extraordinary In the criminal history
Of this state.
Patrick's counsel, former United
States Senator David B. Hill, presented
brief In support of his motion for a
reargument Of the case, which was
decided against Patrick by the court
last June by vote of to 3.
Judge Gray's Part In Judgment.
In the course Of this brief he points
out that son of Judge Clinton Gray,
one of the judges of the court Of ap-
peals and one Of those who voted
against the reversal Of Patrick's con-
viction, was an assistant district at.
torney of New York county and parti-
cipated In the prosecution of Patrick.
The opposing brief Of District Attor-
ney Jerome, drawn 1t is said by the
late ex-Justice Judson s. Landon
short time before his recent death and
filed by Assistant District Attorney
Howard Cans, characterizes Senator
Hills comment upon Judge Gray's
participation in the judgment Of the
court. as being such as mo degree of
eminence in counsel could render re.
spectacle"
"The suggestion that Judge Gray vlo-
lated the proprieties In taking part in
this case is as contemplate as H. is
impudent," the district attorneys brief
declares.
The legal history of Patrick's case
may be summarized as follows:
Arrested Oct. 4, 1900; trial began
Jan. 20, 1902; convicted March 26,
1902 put in death house at Sing Sing
April 2, 1902; appeal for new trial Feb.
10, 1908; petition for new trial denied
by the trial court March 8, 1908; arg
ument on appeal to court Of appeals
postponed for second time May 20,
1904 argument for reopening case
Feb. ~, 1905; arguments for new trial
March 16, 1905; court refuses to grant
new trial, afflrms conviction June 9,
1906; refuses stay Of execution June
IA, 1905; execution set for Aug. Z,
June 16, 1905; motion for reargument
and stay of execution granted July
"a, 1905; renewal Of motion for re-
argument Oct. 2, 1905.
Jerome's Opposing Brief.
The brief filed for District Attorney
Jerome In opposition to the motion for
a reargument thus criticises the effort
to secure a reargument: 1T Is an at
tempt to reopen the case founded upon
O rehash of all that was urged upon
the argument and in the briefs and
coupled with motion papers which.
while conceding that practically all the
points urged had been discussed in
opinions written by members Of the
court, undertakes to criticise, In terms
which, were counsel less eminent,
might well be regarded as insolent.
those of the courts deliberate con-
clusions which the distinguished coun-
sci Is constrained to criticise, and as
sails the judicial conduct Of a men,
ber of this court In a manner which no
degree of eminence in counsel could
render respectable.
"This diatribe covers two volumes
aggregating 1914 printed pages and
enumerates under 20 separate heads
the points which 1t is alleged the court
considered but was unable to grasp,
devotes one head to meritless point
which had not previously been deemed
worthy of discussion, one to the at
tack on the learned Judge who wrote
the prevailing opinion and two to
laudation of the members Of the court
who dissented, conceived In a spirit
which renders 1t scarcely less objec.
tionable than the attack upon their as
sociates."
The brief goes specifically into re-
view of the points raised by Senator
Hill, denying that they constitute
ground for the reargument of the case.
Referring to the point Of Senator Hill
that the son of Judge Gray was an as
sistant district attorney in the case the
brief states: "The suggestion that
Judge Gray violated the proprleties In
taking part In this case is as contemp-
tible as 1t is impudent."
The brief concludes: THE opinions
make clear that the defendants guilt
was established beyond the shadow of
y doubt; that he had fair and impair
tial trial and that he had the careful
and painstaking hearing and consider
alton of his appeal which this court
always accords, and hence it Is respect
fully submitted that the motion for
reargument should be denied"