The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1906-04-24

to serve as grand jurors:
Chas. E. Woodward, Chesterfield.
Howard Mathis, Bass River
Howard Russ, Beverly township
George Swift, Jr., Bordentown city.
Washington Irwin, Burlington city
Alfred Smith, Burlin gton township.
William G. LeConey, Chester
Harry G. Worrell, Riverton.
Peter L. Vandegrfft, Burlington city.
Samuel Cooper, Evesham
Clarence Coate, Lumberton.
Caleb =. Ridgway, Mansfield.
Frank J. Cutter, Burlington city
Benjamin +. Wolf. Medford.
William R; wilkins; Mount Laurel.
William L. FISHER, Palmyra.
] Colby Montgomery, Pemberton borough.
!; Howard Burr, Pemberton borough.
Edgar Allen, SOutha mpton.
Morris r. Levin, Beverly city
Granville w. Leeds, Westa m pton
George S. Maxwell, Washington.
The judge said there was no matter
of especial Importance in criminal cases,
but the usual number of matters to be in
vestigated would be brought to attention.
There was one item outside of the ordi-
nary that the court would ask the aid
of the grand jury in investigating Re-
ports had reached the judge of occurrences
which took place in the Jail yard on the
day the two negroes were executed, oc.
currences which led the court to feel re-
greet, and which. If allowed to go unnoticed,
would leave scandal on the fair name
of this county. There were reports in the
public prints which appear to have foun-
dalton. 1t is alleged that the two men
who so justly forfeited their lives for the
dastardly crime they committed were sub
jected to indignities after their death.
Their bodies were left unprotected and
acts of indecency were committed. Their
bodies were abused by putting articles in
the ears and nose, together with other
deeds of mischief and derision, against
which the law clearly protested.
The statutes of New Jersey strongly
guard the privacy and decency of this
very grave carrying out Of the laws pro-
visions, Specific statements are made
about the care of bodies after the execu-
ton. In event of the family claiming
their dead, bond must be given that the
corpse shall not be exposed to public view
and that there shall not be public funer-
al. 1t is fair to presume that this provis-
ion also extends to the sheriff and there is
no doubt about the bodies at the time
mentioned being in his custody. The de-
sign of the law is to protect the bodies
from public gaze. 1t is important to dis.
cover who were the persons who commit
ted the alleged indignities, and include
them in an indictment if their identity is
ascertained.
Whether the sheriff has been guilty o.
negligence is another question. He is al
official with large responsibility and power
and the question arises how there came t,
be in the jailyard persons who would thu
act and override the dignity of the oc
casion. The law recites with grea
minuteness the number of persons VIII
may be admitted to witness execution:
which in this instance could not have ez
ceeded so at the utmost, but if the jur
would take the trouble to count up thos
possibly be found to be double that a
, lowed The sheriff of a county might s
far forget himself In the worry and r.
sponsibility of such an occasion as to e.
coed his authority and make himself II
dictable, and in such an event it would
, necessary to show that the acts complaine
r of were wilful 1t is to be hoped thi
nothing of that kind exists in this cas-