Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1907-05-30
Continued from 1st Page.
MORNING SESSION.

Hon. II, NJ. Hinckley and Hon FRED
Ikeler in their addresses to the jury in
the Dietrich case.
More forceful and eloquent addresses
have seldom been heard in connection
with any case ever tried i'll Montour
county.
Mr. Hinckley began at 8 o'clock, inn
mediately after the reconvening OF
court, and continued his address for
one hour and twenty-six minutes. He
began by reminding the jury that the
Commonwealth would not ask for a
conviction of murder in the first de-
gree, but would press for verdict OF
murder in the second degree. After
making an eloquent plea for justice
and disinterested action on the part of
the jury, Mr. Hinckley took up the
great mass of testimony reviewing it
in detail. He held that Dietrich was
proud of his craftsmanship and that
when Jones taunted him on his skill
as a marksman he touched him on a
tender spot The revolver that lay on
the counter was empty: Dietrich went
into the adjoining room and returned
with the loaded revolver, after which
the shot was fired that killed Jones.
This Mr.. Hinckley held was the testi-
mony adduced at the first trial but was
departed from in the two subsequent
3 H.. oh
to show that it was not until after
Dietrich had returned from the other
room that Jones made the taunting re-
mark. The impossibility of an accid
ent was emphasized by Mr.. Hinckley,
as he produced the pistol, which is not
a self cooking one, and demonstrated
that the hammer could be drawn back
only with a deliberate effort. This,
together with the defendants damag-
ing statement, that he hit Jones just
where he aimed" Mr.. Hinckley held,
was convincing evidence that the
pistol was deliberately discharged
MR.. IKELER'S ADDRESS.
After short intermission Hon.
Fred Ikeler began his address, speak
tng for over an hour To refute Mr..
Hinckley he declared that the purpose
was not to establish drunkenness as a
defense, for the killing, although it
would be admitted that Dietrich was
drunk as were to certain extent also
Jones and Woll. The defense did con-
tend. however, that Jones lost his life
as the result of the accidental dis
charge of the revolver and that the ac-
ident was largely brought about by
the half-drunken condition of the
whole party. The defense was accid-
ent and drunkenness was only a cir
cumstance connected with it. Like
Mr.. Hinckley, Mr.. lkeler conducted
some experiments with the revolver
that was introduced in evidence, but
he attempted to demonstrate to the
Jury that although the pistol was not
a self-cocklng one, in careless handl-
ing the hammer could easily be accid-
entally raised. There were no grounds,
he held. for murder in the second de
gree as there were none for murder in
the first degree. Neither was there
any evidence on which voluntary man
slaughter could be founded, a degree
which would imply that the blow was
struck to kill in the heat of passion.
Mr.. Ikeler said that there was but one
degree which applied to the case and
that was involuntary manslaughter.
The defendant, he declared, was actu.
ally guilty of involuntary manslaught-
er. but this was not in the Indictment
Nothing, therefore, remained but too
acquit the prisoner. Mr.. lkeler made
an impassioned plea for acquittal,
holding that the defendant wherein
he may have been guilty, las been
punished by the ordeal he
has passed through in the three trials. /
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
At :45 Judge Evans began his ad-
dress to the jury. 1t was lengthy and "
very clear, covering the ground in all .
its entirety. While it was being de
livered utter stiffness prevailed .
throughout the court room, which re-
vealed the deep interest that the pub
lie felt in the charge.
After defining the various degrees
of murder the court carefully review
id the testimony. Touching OH the
new evidence introduced. which might
imply that Woll had contradicted him
self in making statements concerning
the shooting the court called the at
5ention of the jury particularly to the
TACT that the evidence of Sharp M.
Dietz and David Jones was not in
reduced to show, and neither could il
oe taken as proving, that two shots
'eally were fired the purpose OF in
the testimony was merely
% neutralize the evidence of Woll re-
ating to the shooting. The jury in
he case could find one of three ver-
in second degree, vol
lntary manslaughter and not guilty.
ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
Among the minor cases before the
ourt was one of assault and battery
rom Anthony township. Harry Bonn
10Y had been arrested at the instance
f John i. Reynolds, n neighbor, charg-
n mi tb acca II It apd battarv Tho GRAND