Danville intelligencer. [volume] (Danville, Pa.) 1859-1907, 1906-06-08
Dietrich JURY
DISAGREES

The Jury in the case of Common
wealth VS.. Peter Dietrich was unable
to agree upon u verdict. With the con-
sent of the defendant juror was
withdrawn and the case was continu-
ed to September term of court. The
jury was out thirty hours, from noon
on Friday until Saturday evening.
When court convened Saturday morn
ing the twelve men filed into the court
room and took their seats in the place
allotted to the grand jury. The twelve
men looked weary and carewoIn. The
large audience that had already as
sembled seemed to anticipate that there
was a disagreement so that the deep
seated interest and suspense was alb
sent that would otherwise have been
noticeable The court directed the
sheriff to produce the defendant i'll
court and in few minutes Dietrich
appeared and took his accustomed
seat He too seemed to have divined
. that there was disagreement and his
| face bore evidence of no very marked
degree of suspense or anxiety.
/ Theodore Doster, foreman, arose and
addressed the court. He explained that
| the jury found it impossible to agree.
They had also discovered, he said, that
one of their number was a member of
the grand jury that acted on Diet
rich S case.
His Honor, Judge Evans, informed
| the Jurors that their disagreement did
not constitute cause that would
Justify him in discharging them at
that time and he directed them to re-
turn to their room and continue their
deliberation.
At this point Benjamin l.. Diehl,
one of the jurors, whose child was to
be buried during Saturday afternoon.
asked the court whether it would be
possible to get off for the day. Judge
Evans promptly informed him that it
would be impossible to get off at that
stage.
| Theodore Doster had still another
word. As the twelve men rose to their
feet he remarked "Your Honor, those
boards are very hard, over in the jury
room. =" Judge Evans appreciating the
pleasantly, replied, smiling: Il have
no doubt of it, but | do not see any
| remedy. -
With this the twelve men filed back
to the Jury room and Dietrich was
taken back to jail. Twelve O'Clock
came and went and the hours of the
|
| any agreement.
At 5 :l5 o'clock the jury again re-.
turned and reported in positive terms
| that it could not come to an agree
ment Dietrich as in the former case
had been brought down from Jail to
hear the jury report. In view of all
| the circumstances, after due delibera-
| tion it was agreed between the court
and the defendant to withdraw a juror
and to continue the case. The proceed
| ings with the order of court, which
are matter of record, are as follows ::
| Commonwealth VS.. Peter Dietrich,
o. q T., Montour county. Charge
murder.
Now, June End, 1906, nj 5 80 p m.
| it appearing that the jury in the case
has deliberated thirty hours and is
still unable to agree upon u verdict; !;
and it further appearing that since the
submission of the case to the jury, the
child of one of the jurors has sudden
ly died and it also appearing that
Hiram Sandel, n juror impaneled in
| the case, was member of the grand
jury which passed upon and returned
the bill of Indictment upon which this
defendant was tried, and the jury re-
questing to be discharged, rs hopeless
ly divided;
| Therefore, the defendant, Peter Diet
rich, hereby agrees that the court may
Withdraw juror aud continue this
case over the term.
Peter Dietrich.
| w. Kase West, Witness.
| Question by the court SO Peter Diet
rich, defendant, are you willing that
a juror in the trial of your cause be
withdrawn and your trial postponed
until September term of this court
1906, when your case shall be tried be-
fore another jury" Answer of Peter
Dietrich:
Il am,
Peter Dietrich.
Commonwealth VS.. Peter Dietrich,
Oyer and Terminer. Montour county
No | February Term, 1906. Charge
murder.
Now June 2, 1906, it appearing that
the jury empaneled and trying the
above case and deliberating for thirty
hours is still unable to agree upon n
verdict and it further appearing to
the court that since the submission of
the case to the jury II child of one of
the iurymen has died. and it also ap-
pearing that Hiram Sandel, one of the
Jurors empaneled in this case, was a
|
ed upon and returned the bill of in
dictment upon which this defendant
was tried and it.tfurtheri appearing
that the jury had come into open court
and requested to be discharged, for the
reason that they are hopelessly divided
with reference to what their verdict
should be; and it further appearing to
| the court that the defendant, Peter
Dietrich, has consented in writing and
in open court that a juror should be
withdrawn and the cause continued
over for the term benjamin 81.
Diehl, juror, is accordingly with
drawn and the case continued over this
term. By the Court.
The twelve men sitting in the case
were Thomas Refsnyder, Ralph Leig-
how, william H. Whipple, Gideon
Hartman, Henry wireman, b. l..
Diehl, Theodore Doster, George b.
Jacobs, James V. Gillaspy, William
Smith, Andrew Kelly and Hiram
Sandel. That they were much reliev-
ed when they learned that they were
to be released goes without saying
Five minutes after they emerged from
the court house there was hardly a
juror to be seen, each having made q
direct line for his own hearthstone.
1t is rumored that in the final dead
lock the jury stood, five for acquittal,
and seven for second degree murder.
At no time was first degree murder
considered. AT first it is said, there
were only four for second degree MUIR
der, eight favoring acquittal.
FEW TAKE WARNING.