The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-10-03
AS CONVERTIBLE AS II IS IMPUDENT Scorching Answer Filed to Sen-
 ator HiIl's Plea PATRICK CASE IS UP AGAIN District Attorney Says No Degree Of Eminence of Counsel Could Ken.
 der the Plea for Rehear-
 ing Respectable.
PATRICK CASE IS UP AGAIN

Albany, N. Y, October 2.-The case of Albert T. Patrick. who since March 2o, 1902 has been under conviction of the murder of the aged millionaire, William Marsh Rice, in New York City in 1900, came again before the court of appeals today in an aspect as remarkable as any of the previous phases of this case, which throughout has been one of the most ex- traordinary in the criminal history of this state Patricks counsel, former united States Senator David B. Hill, presented a brief in support of his motion for re- argument of the case, which was oecio- ed against Patrick by the court last June by vote of four to eight. In the course of this brief he points out that son or Judge John Clyton Gray, one or me judges of the court of appeals, ana one of those who voted against the reversal of Patrick's conviction. was an assistant district attorney of New York county and participated in the prosecution or Patrick.
 The opposing brief of District Attorney Jerome. drawn, it is said, by the late eA- Justice Judson S. Landen short tune hefore his recent death and filed by As- sistant District Attorney Howard Cans. cbaracter,zes Senator Hilrs comment
 upon Judge Gray's participation Ill the
 Judgment of tbe court as being such as
 no degree of eminence in counsel couio render respectable"
 ContemptibIe as lmpudent. "The suggestion that Judge Gray vio- lated the proprieties in taking part III tbis case is as contemptible as 1t is inn nudent.'' the district attorneys brief says. ,ooo and convicted March 26, 1902 being placed in the death house at Sing sing Aprii l following. ,s A netition for a new trial was denied March & 1903 and again on June 3, l90o.
 Execution was set for August T. put a | motion for a reargument and stay or exc cution was granted July "A, lsoo. wlth re newal of motion for reargument october l 2, 1905. . The brief filed for District Attorney 1 Jerome in opposition to the motion Tor a ] reargument thus criticizes the enort tc secure reargument;
 Founded Upon Rehash. 1 "It is an attempt to reopen the case 1 founded upon a rehash of all that was | urged upon the argument ana Tn the | briefs. coupled with motion papers and brief which, while contendng that prac- tically all the points urged had been ais- l cussed in opinions written by members l of the court undertakes to criticise Tn | terms which were counsel less ienient
 might he regarded as insolent those of the courts deliberate conclusions, which the distinguished counsel IS constraineo to criticise and assails the judicial con l duct of a member of this court in a man ner which no degree of eminence in counsel could render respectable" The brief goes specifically into review
 of the points raised by Senator HI, de- nying that they constitute ground for the
 reargument of the case. Referring to the point of Senator Hill that the son of Iudpe Gray was an assistant district at- torney in the case, the brief stated:
 .'The suggestion that Judge Gray vio-
 lated the proprieties in taking part in this case is as contemptible as it is i'm pudent."