The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-05-20
Johnny blow the fire strong. Molly put the kettle on"
THE HANS DECISION.

Much interest was felt in the trial of Captain Peter c. Hains for the cowardly murder of William E. Annis. an unarmed man without the least chance to protect or defend himself. It was freely predicted that he would be acquitted on one of two pleas, or on the two combined. The first plea, and the one upon which first reliance was placed. was that he killed Annis in obedience to the unwritten Jaw. If that failed to clear him he and his lawyers depended on that other much abused plea of emotional insanity"
 That unwritten law has been respon- sibie for many miscarriages of justice of late. but in none would it have been more gross perversion than 1t would if it had cleared Hains at his late trial. There was no disputing the facts. as they were too plain and well estab- lished to be set aside. Captain Hains and his brother. Thornton. went to where Annis was just leaving, his sailboat and while Thornton stood with pistol in hand to prevent interference. Peter deliberately shot his victim to death with the handy revolver which he carried there for that purpose.
 These are the facts of the murder and Captain Hains pleaded in justifica- ton of the cowardly deed that Annis had violated his home. There seems no room to dispute the charge that Annis and Mrs. Hains had been crim- inally intimate. but the evidence was conclusive that their lawless relations had existed for quite while. It was also shown by positive evidence that Hains had known of this intimacy for a considerable time, yet. so far as ap- pears. he took no steps in the matter until he and his brother hunted up Annis and deliberately murdered him.
 No doubt Captain Hains had kept himself informed of the too numerous cases in which the unwritten law was evoked as justification for murder, and believed that 1t would clear him. His brother, who was some time ago tried as an accessory. was acquitted. and he freely boasted that Peter would come clear on the same ground that saved him. In this he was mistaken. 1t is good to know, for the jury refused to admit the plea as valid. and con- viction followed. It developed, how ever. that both Hains and his attor- neys entertained some doubt as to the success of that plea, so they brought in the other overworked plea of emo tional insanity. and tried to convince the jury that Hains was temporarily insane when he committed the murder and was therefore not responsible for the foul deed.
 But the jury which tried the case refused to be influenced by either of these all too common pleas as a de- fense for murder, and 1t is to their credit that they did so refuse. While 1t Is true that the verdict as is fre- quently the case in the trial of homi- cides. was a compromise, 1t is also true that they convicted the accused. There were those who insisted that Hains should either be acquitted on the grounds stated or convicted of mur- der in te first degree. as the crime justified. but the latter could not be done. 1t seems. and the jury refused to acquit.
 And so. while it is true that the action of the jury was not all that some desired, 1t Is encouraging, just the same. His conviction, and his sentence of eight years will convince the country that the written law yet dominates the unwritten law. and that a sane jury cannot be blinded and led astray by a plea of insanity. On the whole. the result is decidedly encour- aging.