The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-10-28
PATRICK FACES CHAIR.
NOTION FOR RE-ARGUMENT or
 APPEAL IS DENIED.
ca.e of Alleged Murderer of Million aire Rice May Be Carried to Supreme Court of the
 United States.

Albany. N. Y, Oct. 27.-The Court or Appeals today denied the motion Tor re-argument of the appeal Of Albert T. | Patrick. from conviction of murder in | the first degree, and sentence Of death, | for the killing in 1900 of William hice' | an aged millionaire of New York city.
 The motion was made October by for- mer limited states Senator David B. Hill.
 The decision apparently deprlVes | Patrick of his last hope of interference SO far as the courts of this State are concerned. with the execution of the death sentence first passed upon him Tn March, 1902 The Court of Appeals. within a few days. will assign new date for the execution Of the orisiha' sentence whether Senator Hill will attempt to. or can, carry the case to the United
 States Court on appeal. remains to pc seen. Failing in that, Patricks oniy
 hope will lie with executive clemency at the hands of Governor Higgins.
 One of the points raised by senator Hill in his motion for a re-argument of the appeal was the propriety or Judge John Clinton Gray of the Court of Appeals, sitting in the case In view of the fact that his son, Henry c. Gray. had participated as Assistant District Attorney in the prosecution of Patrick in New York City.
 The opinion of the court holds that the propriety of Judge Gray's sitting in the case was for him alone to de- eide. The opinion adds that many and great judges have allowed their rela- lives to practice before them; others have declined to hear cases In which near relatives appeared as counsel put this court has never heard of judge refusing to sit in a case because at
 I~1 t.4 Ia tyyn taken part in the legal proceedings in the case.
 If any objection was entered to Judge Gray's participation in the hear ing of this appeal. it should have been made at the commencement or the ar gument, when, the court declares II he had sought the counsel of his asso- ciates. they should have advised him that 1t was his duty to sit. Counseis should not have awaited Judge Grays action and finding that action unfa- vorable, now take the objection. Senator Hill announced tonight that he hoped to carry the Albert T. Pat rick case to the United States Su- preme Court and he incidentally reit- erated his opinion as to the propriety | of Judge Gray's sitting in the case. His statement follows:
 Possibly I ought not to feel dis appointed that the Court of Appeals | has denied a motion for a re-argument | of this case. That court has granted | but one motion for a re-argument In
 either a civil or criminal case in five years. The court still stands four for | an affirmance of the conviction includ-
 ing the vote of Judge Gray. to three
 for a reversal of a conviction.
 with all due respect to the learned | Court of Appeals, I still insist that Judge Gray was disqualified from sit- | ting in the Patrick case and that our | objection to his sitting was duly and | reasonably taken. Whether Judge 1 Gray's son participated In the 'prepar-
 ation of the appeal, neither the court nor defendants counsel are presumed
 to have any actual knowledge, as that
 work is done in the District Attorneys s | office, and not in open court and 1t
 makes no difference with the question
 of legality or propriety presented, but | the facts remain that he was and still
 Is a deputy to the District Attorney
 and appeared in the case against the defendant in the motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence.
 "The fact, if 1t be true that many | great judges have allowed their rela-
 lives to practice before them. in the past does not make the practice any
 the less unjustihable either in law or
 otherwise. These and numerous Fed
 eral questions involved in this remark
 able case, the defense hope to present
 to the Supreme Court of the United States for final decision"