Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1907-06-13
Fourteen YEARS
IN PEN|TENTIARY

The case of Commonwealth vs.. Peter
Dietrich, in which verdict of mur-
der in the second degree was returned
at the last term of court, was disposed
of Saturday. The defendant for the
| second time was sentenced by Judge
Evans, receiving as at the former trial
fourteen years in the eastern penitent-
iary. 1t will be recalled that the de-
Tense when the verdict was announced
moved for an arrest of Judgment and
new trial.
! The motion for new Trial was argu-
| ed during the forenoon, Saturday,
Hon. Fred Ikeler took up the case for
the defense. None of the reasons ad-
! duced were new but were those whiob
during the trial formed the grounds
! for hot contention between the oDnos-
| ing attorneys
| The reason for a new trial emphasiz.
ed the most was that the court erred
when it overruled the defendants
special plea of jeopardy, contending
that the latter could not be nut ON
trial the second time on the charge o
murder in the first degree. The first
verdict secured being that of murder
IN the second degree the defendant
could not afterward be tried for any
higher degree of murder. The supreme
court did not say go back again and
Try the defendant on charge of which
he had been acquitted. The point
especially emphasized was that, while
the Commonwealth explained to the
jury that it would mot press for a
verdict OF murder in the first dergee,
the case was sent to the jury on an in
dlctment of murder in the first degree
and the jury was left to infer that it
was only through the gracious spirit
and the leniency of the Commonwealth
that it did mot press" for a first de.
gree verdict The jury should have
been informed that the defendant was
not charged with first degree muir
der" and that the Commonwealth had
no right to ask for first degree YER
dict
a MR.. HINCKLEY'S ARGUMENT.
Hon. HI. M. Hinckley in his reply
contended that every point involved
in the reasons" advanced. were
thrashed out at the last trial. For the
most part Mr.. 1keler's argument was
merely criticism of language. To
have accepted the defendants special
plea of jeopardy Mr.. Hinckley said,
would have implied that he could not
be tried at all. The action of the sup
RENE court in sending the defendant
back for trial on a new venire left no
alternative but to try him on the ori-
ginal indictment; it was all the Com
monwealth had to proceed upon and,
besides it was clearly the intention of
the supreme court that the original in
dictment should be acted upon.
The Commonwealth, Mr.. Hinckley
said, acted advisedly in the premises
and in view of the peculiar circumst-
ances of the case, at the very outset
the fact was impressed upon the jury
that the Commonwealth would not
press for first degree verdict. This
fact was studiously kept before the
jury by the attorneys for the Common
wealth and the court in the charge to
the jury was careful to emphasize the
fact that first degree murder was elm
mated and that they could find one of
three verdicts-murder in the second
degree, voluntary manslaughter or not
guilty
MOTION OVERRULED
At II 40 O'Clock court adjourned for
the forenoon, Judge Evans explained
that he would dispose of the case of
Commonwealth VS. Peter Dietrich at
O'Clock, the hour of reconvening.
Promptly at the latter hour Judge
Evans announced his decision. The
motion for arrest of Judgment and
new trial was denied. Peter Dietrich
was Immediately called before court
and sentenced Upon being asked
whether he had anything to say why
sentence should not be passed upon
him he replied:
"Only this, that am not guilty"
The sentence of the court then fol.
lowed: "That you, Peter Dietrich. un.
dergo an Imprisonment in the Eastern
penitentiary at Philadelphia at separ.
ate and solitary confinement for a
period of fourteen years, to be comput-
ed from this date, and you to stand
committed until the sentence is COM
piled with, the sheriff to conduct you
thence within ten days from this date
and to be allowed one assistant -
Immediately following the passing
of sentence William Kase West of
counsel for the defense arose and ask
ed that the stenographer be requested
to write out the evidence, as it was the
intention of the defense to appeal the
case.