Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1906-07-19
petition IS
REFUSED

/ the release OF Peter DlelflCh on Dali
! has ended in failure On July ith the
attorneys for the defense asked that a
date be set for the hearing of the ap
! plication for bail. Judge Evans ac-
cordingly fixed Monday, July 10th, rs
date for the hearing
The hearing was one in which a
large number of people, including Mr..
Dietrich's personal friends felt a keen
interest and accordingly when the
court house bell proclaimed the hour
of meeting Monday morning,a crowd
: of pcope were observed vending their
I way to the court house.
President Judge Evans and associ-
ates Rlcc and Wagner were on the
bench. William Kase West addressed
the court first He took the position
that no evidence was offered during
the trial of Dietrich to show that he
was guilty of murder i'll the first or
the second degree A some length he
reviewed the evidence of Rogers and
Woll. All in the bar room he said had
been driukin and it was n fair pre-
sumption that Jones was shot as the
result of an accident DIR. Paulcs testi-
mony ho said showed that the defend
ants S own apparently damaging state
mentS were not to be relied on, as he
was IN a state of collapse and under
a "a, - 4 irr,.Nr Of
Jones peers had failed to convict him
but had disagreed. Mr. West remind
ed the court that it was known that
the jury at no time stood for verdict
in the first degree, but that eight stood
for acquittal and four for some lesser
degree of crime Personally. Mr.. West
believed that the jury might find for
involuntary manslaughter. The ques
tion of bail, he said, was in the discre-
tion of the court. Dictrich's case af-
forded an instance of "A man languish-
ing in jail. who could never be found
guilty of murder in the first degree
vet who has important business inter
ests to look after and upon whom the
support of others depend.
Hon. II. NJ. HinckIey following.
mildly questioned the legal phase of
the proceeding. The defendant, he
said, had made no petition to be dis
charged on bail. There was only a
written application of counsel Taking
up the question of evidence, which
Mr.. West considered insufficient to
convict of first degree murder, Mr.
Hinckley reminded the opposing attor-
ney that Judge Evans himself, as re-
vealed by his charge to the jury con
sidered the evidence sufficient 10 con-
vict of murder in the first or the sec
ond degree. He denied that the jury
did not consider first degree murder
and that it stood eight for acquittal
and four for some lesser degree. He
took the position that no one knew, or
should know. how the jury stood. He
did not approve of dragging the gossip
of the street into the court room Re
viewing the testimony Mr. Hinckley
declared that all the evidence pointed
to first degree murder. There was no
evidence of accidental discharge of the
pistol. He claimed that there was no
thing to Justify the release Of Dietrich
on bail and that he should be kept in
prison until given another trial The
only business interest of the defendant
which is suffering or which is likely
to suffer, Mr.. Hinckley said, is a sa-
loon now closed but which they want
to open.
Hon. Fred keller of counsel for the
defendant explained why habeas corpus
proceeding was not necessary. All the
evidence in the case he claimed was
brought out before court at the recent
trial. At considerable length he dis
cussed the question of whether or not
man charged with committing homi-
eide could be admitted to bail. He
claimed that III the present case neith-
er is the proof evident nor the pre-
sumption of guilt great. He reminded
Judge Evans, if in his own opinion he
did not believe that the killing of
Jones rose above second degree muir
der. then he ought to admit him to
| bail, even though a second trial from
evidence adduced might result in a
verdict of murder in the first degree.
He cited a number of authorities bear
ing out this view.
Judge Evans took the papers after
which court adjourned until O'Clock
in the afternoon Upon reconyening
Judge Evans rendered his decision, re-
fusing the application. The opinion
carefully considered the points of law,
the rights of the defendant in the
premises as well as the charge of the
court given to the jury at the trial.
The opinion in conclusion reads as
! follows:
In charging the jury we are satisfi-
ed that we followed the law rs laid
down by the courts
1t is the nature of the intention
with which the criminal act is com
mitted that constitutes the great dis
/ tiuguishing feature between murder
/ of the first and murder of the second
/ degree
To allow the application to prevail
! would in effect hold that there could
/ he no conviction of murder IN the first
degree in this case that is, assuming
/ that the testimony in the second trial
/ will be the same rs it was in the first
4 trial
As we view the matter tine qucs-
tion of the guilt or innocence Of this
defendant of the crime charged against
him in the Indictment is question ~
fact to bc determined by jury ot his
1 cOuntrymen.
Applying the rule as laid down by
Sadler in criminal lawtsupraJ to this
case we have no right 10 admit th"