The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-07-09
NO SECOND TRIAL OF STABLE
~ D,I TRiIN'S DIN ~ IRcI an,
~ m " NOI ITI.IL.
appellate nv I-I"n ~uStaIn- Justice Ne,
burst.r in the ass % the az, ,.tir,.
~tBsiroi Nrru~rd of Murder In
Ga~~ Wa Taken FTom 10. In.

Vincent ! Stable. the city e. ...... 81,
dent who .h,t and klll.i John Mo-.
On" - a crowd ct boys wh1 v.r. .......
mg him ~ the Hells Kitchen ,lr-...... ..
Sartemb..r - last. will roman ire. Dol. q.
= ruling hy IN" App"llat' D,,t~,ur .' "a.
supreme Court handed down yr~t.r 4
that Judge cram at G-u.r,r $3.50.
discharged the Jury hstur- q L,i re--.r,. e.,
a Disagreement
Stable was on trail from Mar. .r...
and the Jury retired at 5.i5P VI uf Mar.
a.. They went into court at D.. T. "
- near tWimnny read and shortly ate.
~ u.ciu"k Judge Cram -.ut Tor them
When they returned the Court asked b,
they had agreed on a verdict and N.
foreman said Not as vet
Judge tram rpplied that he uas L,s,,
- keep the jury together longer than III.
five hours they had b~en IN sssslpu. and
discharged them Counsel for ~t,h.
got wit 81 habeas corpus and with a
submitted g supreme Court Ju.t,rS.
Newburger affidavits Of Jurors sayus
that whll.. trsy were voting. ten fOr Ac-
ouittal and two for manslAughter N n.
first degree. and before they were through
q lkf'liNNADK lnf W. WITT AAaA1
much u our surprise. that We we're u
return q the court room" They sad
that at no time did they say. eithsr IN.
dIviduaIly or collectively. that they could
not agree and desired to b. discharged
Stables counsel contended before Jus-
tice Newburger that by reason - II.
trial and discharge Of the jury stabis
had been put in jeopardy onoe and oould
not be retired Therefore he was sn-
titled To h. discharged.
Ia sustaining the writ and releasing
Stable Justice Newburger said that undsr
the Code of Criminal Pr cedure q jury
can he discharged before ~ has Agrssd
only upon the occurrence Of an accident
To the Court. the defendant or one u ths
Jurymen. or after the jury has deciarsd
II cannot agree. or by agreement Of pross
Cutor and the Court. None OF these Con.
ditions was present in this case. The
United States court IN reviewing the
action Of q State court in "A similar cAr
held that where the jury had been al
charged without the prisoners cnnsent
the discharge ~ equivalent 10 an scquittA
Judge NeWblIrger held accordingly that
Judge Cranes action was without warran,
and har To "A subsequent trial
Justice Clarke, writing the Appellate
Division decision sustaining Justice New
burger says that the Court unwarrant-
ably intsrfsrei with the deliberations Of
the Jury. since the d.-s,la ration that IN.
jury u unable to decide must proceed in
the f~st instance from that body i'sel ,
that the failure of defendants counsel u
object tn the discharge Of the jury did not
amount "a his consent. as provided for IN
the code, that II the jury was improperiy
discharged there - no doubt that such
discharge was equivalent tn an Acqmttal
and that the question was properly lei
in writ IT habeas corpus.
The Court SAYS the question was ms,
raised by habeas corpus 100 years ago
without any suggestion that E;Ici! Cuurs
Was improper
II IN" discharge It the jury was ~,
warranted" said the Cour'. and Il a
unwarrantsd discharge 81 tn" jury -
the equivalent ~ an HcuuittAl. then =
must follow that the relator n illegally
and IN violation 81 his constltutiona!
rights deprived Of his liberty
Testimony at the trial showed that
young Stable fired AT random Ia fnghien
away his torfnenror-. MPmbars ~ The
college faculty testified 10 his good char.
acter and engaged counsel for him
He has been at liberty since Juiice NeT
burger sustained his writ 4 sIrrilaf
case has never occurred in this state