New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-04-12
AFFIDAVITS MADE
TO FIT, SAYS COFF
In Written Opinion He
Finds Only Four of 10
Worth a Thought.
NONE WOULD HAVE
MOVED TRIAL JURY
Action Taken at Last Moment In
tended to Win Sympathy and o.
Override Courts.

1.s,ice Cor. In denying the motion Of
,ss four gunner for new trial gave the
eououinc opinion last night.
within a few hours. excluding the in
,ervening Sunday, OF the sentence OF
10th being executed upon the defend
ants. they made application for a new
trial This application was. in ordinary
Observance Of the rules. referred to me by
the Justice of this court. before whom it
zas made. such reference was made be-
cause the law requires that a motion for
q new trial must be made before the JUS
lice who presided at the trial.
Were IL possible. in the sense Of judi
-isl propriety. for me 10 avoid hearing
the application l would have done so. to
the end that stronger mind would be
employed and that l would be relieved
from a very onerous and heart searching
burden. But the law casts upon me re-
suonsibiiity and a duty. and no matter
how grave the responsibility may be or
how disagreeable the duty l shall not
shift the one nor fail 10 discharge the
other
been presented nineteen affidavits, some
Of which are original and others copies
Of originals already fled with the Gov
ernor on behalf OF the people the Dis
trict Attorney has filed ten affidavits de-
signed 10 reply 10. in a more or less de
gree. the affidavits presented in favor OF
he motion OF the nineteen afhdaNits
mentioned. fifteen should be disregarded
as they consist mainly Of hearsay, ini-
pressions and matters that are irrelevant
and immaterial. The remaining four
sfidavits. those Of Dresner, Burwel, Hal
manson and REQ. will be considered as OK
any probative value whatever. Consid-
Grafton Of these four affdavits must in
Clude their oral examination and cross
examination had In open court
Testimony Made to Fit.
The point OF importance dvelt upon
bv Dresner was that he was present on
July %. 1872. outside the Garden Restau-
rant when ne heard Rose say 10 WALTON
and Weber as Rosenthal emerged from
the restaurant: There he comes. Go and
put il over him; that Dresner, under
standing what that meant, crossed the
street 10 avoid danger. and that Rose
took him for a Burns detective. Rose did
not so testify on the trial
What Rose testified 10 was: 1t began
10 look too much sike business, and /
called Louie aside and l said, pointing TO
a man across the street: DO you see that
fellow over there lie said Yes"
said: Il am almost positive that is a
Burns man that District Attorney whit
nan has assigned TO watch Rosenthai."
They took the hint and departed and went
home. did not know whether or not the
nan was a Burns man or a Burns de-
tective. I knew nothing about that at all.
/ Just used that. II began TO look like
business. and that never was my intention
az anytime 10 bring about the murder Of
Rosenthal.'
This testimony Of Dresner bears the
unmistakable stamp OF being made 10 fit
Roses testimony. TO show an apparent
want Of foundation for the presence Of a
Burns detective. Rose did not say that
he was a Burns detective, but he made
use OF the appearance Of the man as a
prstext TO ward of the impending killing
Of Rosenthal
1T is somewhat remarkable that. not
outstanding the apprehension Of ORES
ner that something dire was going 10
happen. nothing did happen because or
the words alleged 70 have been uttered
by Rose. on the contrary. Rosenthal
walked down the avenue with his VIE
unmolested. The incident thereupon
closed.
While the testimony Of Rose on the
trial concerning the incident at the Gar
Den restaurant was competent TO show
PREPARATION and combination on the part
q the main defendants for the commits
sion - a crime, II was merely step IN
the progression Of proof, and contradic-
ton Of that. even II true. would Of itself
IL wholly insufficient 70 warrant the
granting Of a new trial.