The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1915-05-14
SUPREME COURT GIVES
DIETzEL LIFE SENTENCE
Mitigating Circumstances Modifies
the Sentence.

DlCILSlB JlC yCdl -Olu oOl
of Herman Dietzel, the wealthy har
ness shop proprietor of Union City
must serve the remainder of his lif'
! in the penitentiary at Nashville fol
having murdered George Wehman
the 55-year-old eccentric painter
whose body was found in an aban
doned well eleven days after the
killing with gunshot wound in the
| the back of his head and with his
roll of bills gone. Such was the de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the
case in an elaborate opinion handed
down by Justice Grafton Green.
The high court took into consid-
Grafton that portion of the jurys
verdict naming mitigating circum-
stances" Judge Joseph E. Jones,
before whom the case was tried in
the lower court, took no cognizance
of the mitigating circumstances, but
sentenced DietzA to electrocution on
the conviction of murder in the
first degree" The high court, in
passing upon the case, stated that
the guilt of Dietzel was clear in
their minds, that the evidence in the
case was uncontroverted; but added
that 'in this case like all other cases
of circumstantiaI evidence there is
a possibility of mistake somewhere
in this case a bare possibilty-we
therefore modify the judgment of
the court below and Dietzel will
serve life sentence"
The rendering of the modified
opinion in the case led some to be-
lieve that the Supreme Court had
taken cognizance of the present
Bowers bill which was passed by the
Legislature but vetoed by the Gov
ernor. The Supreme Court based it's
opinion bearing on the element of
mercy on that clause of the jurys
verdict, with mitigating circum-
stances"
The case went to the higher court
on the facts. 1t is true that there
were errors assigned along the lines
of technicality but in the eyes of the
court of last resort these were not
sufficient to change the status of the
case as tried in the lower court.
AS was anticipated the Supreme
Court looked to the bloody laprobe,
the stained money, the actions of
Dietzel in visiting the vicinity of the
abandoned we'll practically every day
following Wehman's disappearance
and DietzePs failure to go on the
witness stand during the trial as
evidence pointing strongly to his
guilt.
In handing down the opinion
Judge Green stated that the&alibi
was shattered by the evidence of two
witnesses who testified that the
Dietzel buggy did not arrive at the
livery stable till II o'clock on the
light of July II.
In the closing decree Judge Green |
covered the case with the following
Iuestions:
What motive could a young nah
n the standing of the plaintiff in
'rror have had for seeking the COM
,any of an eccentric laborer like the
deceased, and driving him around |
Over the country? Could he have
'een up to anything good?
For what purpose did the plain
iff in error hire this rig on the
light of July II and what did he do
With it?How did this laprobe become
aturated with blood, and whose
lood could it have been save that of
he deceased?
MIDNIGHT DRIVE.
"Who else was on such terms with
eceased as to induce the latter to
AXE midnight drive with him, and
Tho but the plaintiff in error was
that the witness met returning to
nion City on the Protemus road
18th his face concealed with the lap
obe, Frome whence was this dis
uised individual coming except
ON the scene of his crime?
PAID DEBTS ON SUNDAY.
"Why was the plaintiff in error
aging his debts on the Sunday after
lie disappearance of George Web
an? Do men ordinarily settle their I
,ligations on Sunday? If plaintiff [
| error had his money to pay his b
dge dues prior to Sunday, why 4
lould he have. delayed, and why q
Iould he have waited to settle with
IS sister-in-law? If he only got !,
lis money on Saturday, July IL,
here did it come from? Why is no =
.planation offered as to its sources? D
IDENTITY OF BILLS.
rs it likely that the tailor could !