The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-23

MEn. WILLIAM DtStmWf N~nAcssoN hU
proper Relations with Murdered MAJ
-sIcr story Not Beiieved-Ceu Ac-
cents Plea OF Murder IN secSod Degree.
SoMERvILLE. N. j.. Oct. 37.-William
Dittmar, who was to-day ~afTaigned in
the somerset county court for the murder
Of David Howard. on June 10. was con-
victed before he was actually tried. After
the conviction the Court heard the testi-
mony Of nearly a score Of witnesses and
sentenced Dittmar to twenty years at hard
labor In State prison. Dittmar was fore
man In the Somerville iron works. Among
the employees was David Howard who
was a close friend Of Dittmar.
Dittmar had an attractive wife and a
tweive-year-oId daughter. Il was rumored
that Dittmar's wife was insanely jealous
Of him and had induced Howard to watch
the movements Of her husband and report
to her.
Dittmar was informed by one OF the
employees that Howard was acting as a
spy ON him. On the night before the muir
der Dittmar accused Howard Of being
a false friend and had a fight with him,
after which he went home and quarrelled
with his wife. After the quarrel Dit
mars wife left him and with her daughter
went to Baltimore on III morning Of the
murder.
Dittmar bought a revolver and went to
Towards boarding house and shot him
dead. Dittmar at the time Of his arrest
told County Prosecutor Roger and County
Physician Long that he had killed Howard
because the latter had broken up his home.
He said then that he had no suspicion Of
any improper relations between his wife
and Howard. but that Howard had carried
false information TO Mrs. Dtttmar.
When the court was opened with Justice
Garretson and Judge Schenck on the bench,
the Jury was called, but not empanelled,
Prosecutor Roger announced that az a result
Of the two hour conference with Dittmar's
counsel and the Court, the State had agreed
to accept a plea OF murder in the second
degree on the part 81 Dlttm mar .AatEXanA;
the Court and said he had been moved to
ask for the acceptance OF a plea OF murder
in the second degree because he was con-
| WINGED that the State, from the nature OF the
evidence. could not convict the DEFENDANT OF
| murder in the first degree.
He said that the relations between Dit
mars wife and Howard had been improper
and that the wife's confession OF her guilt
to her husband on the morning OF the muir
der had driven him temporarily insane;
that he was not responsible for his actions at
the time OF the murder and had no reCollec-
ton Of killing Howard.
In accepting the plea on behalf. OF the
! State, Prosecutor Roger laid but little stress
on the story Of the improper relations exist
ing between Howard and Dittmar's wife.
He said that the evidence in the case showed
that Dittmar was drunk when he com-
| mitted the murder, and the State was I'M
| able to prove the wilful deliberation neoes-
sary to convict Of murder in the first degree,
Justice Garretson said that he believed the
Court would satisfy the ends Of justice by
accepting the plea OF murder in the second
degree.
A strange feature Of the testimony OF
the witnesses which the Court heard to
determine the extent OF DittmarIs punish
ment was hat Of the prisoners wife. a
woman Of evident refinement, who coolly
told OF improper relations with Howard
who was a coarse, dissipated man.
Dittmar's pretty little twelve-year-olc
daughter sat in court and listened 20 bel
mothers story, which IL not generally cred
tied. The popular belief tonight Ii thai
Mr. Dittmar sacrificed her good name In
tho hope that she could not only save he
husbands life but secure mitigation Of
his sentence.
Mrs. Dittmar and her daughter have
been very attentive to Dittmar since he
has been confined in Jail, and when he was
sentenced tonight they became hysterical
and their weeping stopped the our pro
ceeding s until they were led from the room