The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-04-12
Supreme Court Justice
Finds No Grounds
for New Trial.
GOVERNOR FAILS
TO GIVE REPRIEVE
Glynn Makes No Comment on
Decision, but 1t Is Apparent
He Will Take No Further
Action, and Men Will
Go to Chair on
Monday.


OF the four gunner condemned to die
on Monday for the murder OF Herman
Rosenthnl, tho gambler. seemingly was
blasted Tonight, when Supreme Court
Justice John W. Goff. TO whom final
appeal for q new trial had been made,
declined to reopen their case.
At prolonged hearing to-day, JUS
tico Gor, who WAS the presiding judge
ut tho gunmen's trial, listened to tho
testimony of new witnesses produced
at the last moment by counsel for the
doomed men. Late in the afternoon,
after District Attorney Charles ).
Whitman had been given his oppor-
tunity TO Offset tho newly Offered owl
dence with testimony by witnesses OF
his own. Justice Goff took the case
under advisement. announcing that he
would render a decision tonight.
Tolls Long Over Record.
| For moro than four hours the JUS
tice toled over the record OF the days
proceedings. Then, shortly before 10
o'clock. he appeared at tho door OF his
chambers and briefly and quietly an
nounced to the waiting crowd of news
paper men that he had denied the APP
plicatton for n new trial. stating mere
~ that his opinion would be given out
as soon as copies OF 1t could be pre-
pared.
Justice Coz, In his opinion denying a
new trial, cited that the application
had been referred to him because tho
law requires that motion for a new
trinl be made before the justice WHO
presided at the trial
Pointing out that on behalf of the
defendants, nineteen affidavits had been
presented, the court declared that If
teen should be dlsregarded. as consist
| ing mainly OF hearsay, Impressions
and matters that are Irrelevant and I'M
Material"
or the other four attidavits, those OF
Dresner, Burwoll, Kalmanson and REQ,
the court said. would not he considered
OF any probative value Whatever.
Consideration OF these four afndavits
must include their oral examination
and cross examination had In open
court"
Continuing. tho decision said:
THE point OF Importance dwelt upon
by Dresner was that he was present
on the 18th OF July, 1912. outside tho
Garden restaurant. when he heard
Rose say to WALTON and Weber, as
Rosenthal emerged from the restaurant.
There he comes. Go and put 1t over
him; that Dresner. understanding
what that meant, crossed the street TOT
avoid danger. anG that Rose took hinI\
for r. private detective. Rose did notN
so testify In tho trial. What Rose
testified to was: 1t began to look too
much like business, and called Louie
aside. and 1 said pointing to man
across tho street: DO you see that fell
low over there" He said. Yes / said:
II am almost positive that Is private
detective that District Attorney Whit !.
man has assigned to watch Rosenthal." !,
They took tho hint and departed and .
went home
Evidence "Msdc to F1t.'
This testimony OF DrosIier bears the
unmistakabie stamI. OF being made to
1T Roses testimony. 1t Is some
what remarkable that Notwithstanding
the apprehension OF Dresnor that some
thing dire was going TO happen, moth
ing aid happen because OF. the words
| alleged to have been uttered by Rose.
-, lille tho testimony Of Rose at the
trial concerning the incident at tho
Garden restaurant was competent to
show preparation and combination on
the part of the main defendants for the
commission OF q crime, II was merely
| Il step in the progression OF proof and
contradiction OF what, even IL true.
would Of itself be wholly insufficient
to warrant tho granting OF n new trial.
This witness went Oh TO narrate what
he says he observed on the morning OF
the 10th, when Rosenthal was killed
He did not testify that he saw tho
killing or heard shots. notwithstand-
ing he WAS In Forty-third street at
the time OF the killing and the pass
ing OF the automobile. He claims to
have Identified WALTON. Webbcr and
Schcpps in the passing automobile 1t
is remarkable that this witness should
be found to be present at these two
Important tli!leS: TINS Is on tho 18th at
the Garden restaurant and on the 18th
on Fortv-third Street ut the timo OF
the killing. Intrinsicaliy this testi-
mcny Is unworthy OF credence and IL
there was any element for that con-
riction IL IL furnished by the witness
himself. inasnuch az, knowing the
Widespread notoriety given TO tho MUIR
der or Rosenthal and u knowledge on
his part OF the Importance Of his testi-
money. he rcfrained from coming for
ward and making known to counsel
Tor tho defendants to the district
attorney what he had heard and OBJ
served
Evidently Invented
The only reason he assigns for bia
failure Is that he was in fear OF his
NE: OF whom he was afraid he doea
not state. and his failure where human {
lie WAS involved. 10 come forward as
witness until the last hour. when op- y
portunity for examination or contra
dlction Is not given, Is circumstance
CT invention so strong that no reliance
can he placed upon his testimony.
Burwcll testified that when In
Forty third Street on the morning ns 3
Rosenthars death, no heard two shots =
and saw the man who fred tho shot. Z
In turn. He said he did not know the
man. The point OF his testimony rests 8
on his statement that neither OF -tha
four defendants was the man who fired
tho shots. Burwcli never saw either
one OF the four defendants, and tbo
only knowledge he has OF them waais
derived from his seeing some pictures
purportinS to represent the defendants
In n clipping from pewspapor.
ut Is unnecessary to dwell for q g q
moment on the utter insecurity of