New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-10-28
PATRICK LOSES FIGHT.
ONE FORLORN HOPE LEFT.
Man Take Famous Murder Case to
Federal Supreme Court.
Tsy Telegraph to The TrIbune,l


anew DC. o7-The case of Albert T. Pat
rick whose motion for a reargument was oe-
MED to-day by the Court of Appeals VIII 10
taker, TO the United States Supreme Court Aie
nroee5ure will be to make application 10 o'te
If tha members of the federal court for q VIII
of error. and in this way the defence hopes 10
argue the case before the full court
Ex-senator David B. Hill says there are many
federal questions involved.
with all due respect to the learned Soui' u
anreals. I still insist that Judge John clinton
GRAY was disqualified from sitting IN the a.
rick case said Mr.. Hill to-day
Judge Grav.s son. Henry G. Gray, was ano
still is deputy assistant district attorney anu
snneare7 in the case against the defendant Oh
fine rnotion for new trial for newly dlscoF-
cred evidence. ..5,os
The fact, if it be true. that many great !uuees
have allowed their relatives TO practlse &C.,
them in the past does not make tfle pa +,.
.,v .be less Unsuitable. either in law OF o',l
rice These and the federal questions lhNoi' -
IN this remarkable case the oeiehee Hop
present to the federal court u-
NJ M, referred to the conviction for forgery
IN the Abel case, which was ann NJ ~
s-o,,,+ of Appeals last week, in which the cour'
stood four to three, as IN the L alIiOh N
conviction was sustained.
o,s of tbe questions involved in the Aoeei
case Mr.. Hill said practically lnVolNeo III
4be Patrick case. The point referred 10 was INC
question of forgery in the letter OF introoucIlo
,yhicb AbeeI presented. II his dissenting JPN
ION Judge Cullen declared that inasmuch as INC
alleged writer Of the letter was not injured Inc
writing did not constitute forgery
In arguing the Patrick case MI. Hill c0iie
attention TO the cremation letter, wnicn 'he
prosecution held to be forgery The delehcs
offered evidence to show that the letter ioiio eu
the declared intention of Rice, but the evidence
was excluded .. .,.o
The defence sought to show that because tiie
letter did no injury to Rice, but represented ms
views the writing did not constitute forgery
The ordnton of the court in the case rendered
nv Chief Judge Cullen, holds that the proprlety
of Judge Gray's sitting in tie case was one -oi
him alone TO decide. Judge Cullen adds'
But the objection now presented not to Jn oqe
Gray alone but to the whole coqa, 15 d. xpress our
Just TO associates that we snoaaq 4 tdees nave
views On the subject Many ana great bFa hem
alSwed have se ecrned to hear in which near
1e1atiyes appeared as counsel. but we nave neEe
heard OF so9e Earlier period his relative had taken
part IN the legal proceedings IN the cause in
appea was argued in this court oy Juusss 1a1i eS
ana ho"siru ~ anneared either in the prepara
t5 Nv in The argument of the appeal. and his sole
connection with the that already statto
we think would not occur to the most sensaeiye
judicial officer that such previous appearance , IN
q case of his son. not counsel for a pIlVaLe !1la
cant hut as a public officer, in the performance
of oiciaI duties would either bias his action or al
tect public confidence in the Importantly OF 'h&l
While If Judge Gray had retired from the hearing
lis motives at the same time they would have
felt that delicacy had been INDUCED in to an ex
which IN me ttanc have fallen Upon him had been
Il, ne ~ n5vva rrsnfbIV imposed upon one of them
II may be further said that If any objection was
SeaTnr Of this sppeal it should have been made
at the commencement of the argument, When, II ne
have advised Judge Gray that il was his duty to
sit. Counsel should not have awaited Judge Gray S
action, and finding that action unfavorable' now
take the objection.
Judge Cullen declares at the outset of the
opinion that although he one of the minori-
ty who dissented from the afflrmance of the
judgment of conviction in this case, he is en-
tirely clear that the present motion for re-argu-
ment should be denied
Judge Cullen insists that the court gave full
consideration to every important objection
raised by Patrick's counsel and that ali were
discussed in either the prevailing or the dissent
ing opinions.
his last hope OF interference, far as the courts
OF this State concerned, with the execution
Of the death sentence, first passed upon him in
March, 1902. The Court OF Appeals within a
few days VIII assign new date for the execu-
ton Of the original sentence.
Whether the United States Supreme Court
1r,1I accent 5risHfcfion by recognizing the pres
ence IN the case Of any Federal question, or,
having accepted it, how its judgment will affect
the final disposition of the convicted man, are
questions upon which learned lawyers express
widely different opinions
Albert 7. Patrick has been fighting for his life
ever since March, 1902, when he convicted of
the murder OF William NJ Rice. He was con-
vtcted the testimony OF Charles T. Jones Rice $
valet. who made q confession the veracty Of
which has been inpugned many times that the
murder had been committed by Patrick and ad
Knitting his completely. According to his story,
Patrick convicted after long trial. IN which
James w. Osborne was prosecuting attorney A
motion for a new trial. made Immediately after
viction, was denied and Patrick went to Sing
Sing Jones. after being confined for short time
in the House Of Detention. went TO the Southwest
where reports were circulated that he was dead
but his death has never been established
In the lighthouse at Sing Sing, Patrick worked
hard on his own case encouraged by the visits of
his wife. who married him In the Toubs, and the
report Of the Medico Legal Society that there was
no evidence that Rice had been killed by chloro-
form.
When his case went before the Court of Appeals
Patrick is said to have coached David B. Hill in
the important points. The Court Of Appeals af-
frued the conviction last June. refusing a new
trial and setting the date of execution for August
Motion for reargument and a stay OF execution was
.july a