The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1907-09-21
DwYER GETS CHANGE OF VENUE
Judge Breen and District Attor-
ney Maestretti Rap the Ne
vada Supreme Court

INV N81
| Court had convened Of Austin. Lander
County. Friday Of last week. Judge
Peter Breen presiding. District Attorney
A. ]. Maestretti, in accordance with the
dicision of the Supreme Court. made a
motion for a change Of venue in the
case of the State VS.. Patsy Dryer.
Dryer. who was convicted Of murder
in the first degree at Austin, and sen.
fenced to be hanged. was granted a new
trial BY the Supreme Court, and Judge
Breen ordered the case sen to Elko.
The defendant was remanded into the
custody Of Sheriff NJ. A. Murphy. to be
delivered by him to the Sheriff Of Elko
County without bonds. Dwyer is now
in the Elko County Jail.
After the disposal Of the Dwyer case
and he had been removed from the
court room. District Attorney Maestretti
arose and asked for permission. as a
privilege, to make a statement in re-
gard to a part Of the decision of the
Supreme Court. Mr.. Maestretti spoke
as follows:
Protest of District Attorney
eff it please the Court at this time l
wish to arise to the question of privilege
in relation to a statement made in the
disposition of this case, wherein it was
reversed in the Supreme Court, and that
is this, in its decision the Supreme
Court has stated in substance that the
theory Of the prosecution in this case
was that Dwyer killed Williams
through mistake while looking for a
man named O'Brien with whom the
defendant had had trouble during the
day over a prostitute.
al wish to state at this time that that
is absolutely not the fact. further that
there is nothing in the records from
the first page to the last which suggests
or would warrant the Supreme Court
in making such q statement in lis de-
%cisiou, and where anything is shown on
that record upon which the Supreme
Court renders such q decision is beyond
my understanding"
The Court Comments on Decision
Here the Court, upon the protest of
the District Attorney. commented as
follows:
81 highly commend you. Mr.. District
Attorney. for the steps you have taken
to put yourself right with the public in
a matter 80 closely connected with your
onerous official duties. The statement
in the decision of the Supreme Court
which you have contradicted, l also
know to be utterly without foundation.
You were alone in the case for the State
and I say you did not conduct it's prose-
cution upon the theory of mistake. nor
is there anything in the record to so in
dictate.
"The Supreme Court. being the tri.
bunal under our judicial system to
which has been given, 50 to say, the
last word. hat tribunal, it seems to me,
should be exceptionally careful to make
no statement having a tendency to I'M
justly reflect upon or misstate the posi-
ton Of any officer, party or witness con.
nected with the trial of a cause.
$50 far as it appears to me by the
stenographic record on file, the state
ment in the opinion as written by Judge
Norcross. to which objection has been
made like some other assertions in the
same, abnormally strange document, is
neither fair to you as prosecuting officer,
nor to this Court; and whether or not il
was made for the purpose of bolsterinR
up a decision. which, to my mind. is
neither founded on law nor supported
by fact, aud is a palpable reversal of the
MILAN case, which for 40 years has
been the law of this State on the ques-
ton Of change OF venue, it was highly
reprehensible for its author, or authors
to have made it. fused the word rep
rehensible,' let me say as a modifca
ton = 'reprehensible'-i the Court
knew what it was doing, 'pitiable,' if il
did not.
1.-THE Clerk will spread the remarks Of
District Attorney Maestretti, with thu
remarks by the Court in the minutes o.
this days session."