Danville intelligencer. [volume] (Danville, Pa.) 1859-1907, 1906-07-20
IS
REFUSED

|
date be set for the hearing of the ap
piication for bail. Judge Evans ac
cordingly fixed Monday, July 18th, as
date for the hearing.
The hearing was one in which a
large number of people, including Mr..
Dietrichs personal friends, felt keen
interest and accordingly when the
court house bell proclaimed the hour
of meeting Monday morning,a crowd
of people were observed vending their
way to the court house.
President Judge Evans and associ-
ates Blee 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 in the first or
the second degree. At some length he
reviewed the evidence of Rogers and
| Woll. All in the bar room he said had
been drinking and it was fair pre-
sumption that Jones was shot as the
result of an accident DR.. Paules' testi-
mony he said showed that the defend
ants own apparently damaging state
was in state of collapse and under
| the influence of drugs. A jury 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 a 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. Dietrich's case af
forded an instance of man languish-
ing in Jail. who could never be found
guilty of murder in the first degree
yet who has important business inter
ests to look after and upon whom the
support of others depend.
Hon. III. NJ. Hinckley 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, rs re-
veaied by his charge to the jury con-
sidered the evidence sufficient to 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 tho 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 sa-
loon now closed, but which they want
to open.
nf 20 ha
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 in 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 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 reconvening
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 we'll 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 satisti-
ed that we followed the law as laid
down by the courts.
''It is the nature of the intention
with which the criminal act is com
mitted that constitutes the great dis
tinguishing 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
be 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 as it was in the first
trial.
"As we view the matter the ques
tion of the guilt or innocence of this
defendant of the crime charged against
him in the indictment is question OF
fact to be determined by jury of hi.
countrymen.
Applying the rule as laid down by
Sadler in criminal law w(supra) to thi
case we have no right to admit thu
defendant to bail.
And now July is, 1906, application
is denied.
r By the Court
CHARLES G. EVANS, P. j