The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1915-04-23
DIETzEL CASE TAKEN UP
BY The SUPREME COURT
Judge J. M. Anderson, of Nashville,
for the Defense.

Jackson, Tenn, April 19.-Dit
Frank Dietzel, 23 years old, of Unior
City, murder George Wehman, As
year-old painter of that place, or
the night of July II, 1914, take
from the dead mans pocket a big
Troll of money and then throw the
body in a 12-foot we'll outside the
city limits?
This is the question being con,
sidered by the Supreme Court, which
began it's annual session here to,
day. Argument in the celebrated
case was begun shortly after II
o'clock this morning, when Judge
j. M. Anderson, of Nashville, opened
the case for the defense.
Dietzel, it will be remembered
was found guilty of murder in the
first degree with mitigating circum-
stances, by jury in the Criminal
Court of Obion County last Septem-
ber, and was sentenced to be elec-
trocuted at the penitentiary at
Nashville in May.
This morning Marshal James Dem
ing brought the prisoner into the
court room and assigned him to a
seat in the dock. Dietzel remained
composed until the Mobile & Ohio
southbound train brought to the
city his gray-haired father and
mother, two sisters and three broth
ers, all Of whom occupied seats near
him in the court room this morning.
Upon their appearance Dietzel show
ed visible signs of grief
Dietzel was convicted on circum-
stantial evidence.
A bloody lap robe and blood
stained $40 bills play a large part
in the case. The contention of the
State is that Dietzel took Wehman
out in the buggy with him that
night, shot him in the back of the
head, killing him, robbed him of the
money, amounting to over $3.50, and
then threw the dead body into the
we'll just outside the city limits and
then covered the well with planks.
Fighting the case along these lines
and connecting threads of evidence
into an apparently harmonious
whole, Attorney-Ge D. J. Cald-
we'll and Maj. Hal Holmes, counsel
for the State, forced the conviction
and sentence of death in the Lower
Court.
ANDERSON REVIEWS CASE.
Judge J. M. Anderson, of Nash
Vile, one of the most noted criminal |
lawyers in the State, appeared be- |
fore the court this morning in de-
tense of young Dietzel.
II come before you to review the
facts in this case. We appealed |
his case mainly on the grounds that
he facts do not justify the verdict
and that it ought to be reversed"
began Judge Anderson, opening up
he voluminous record in the case.
This case is purely one of circum-
jtantial evidence, and l warrant you
hat there is absolutely nothing in
his record that will justify the YER
lict of guilty. The State assigns rob-
)ery as the motive for this crime.
Nhu Chn1111 1yiJ ,irI |
PAINTER for his money? This record
hows that senior Dietzel
wealthy citizen, that he has been
,ery liberal with this boy, that he
las never refused him money. Now,
Why should Dietzel slay Wehman for
lis money? Did Dietzel know that
Vehman had money that night?
there is absolutely nothing in this
ecord to show that he did. AS a L
natter of fact, Wehman had entrust- s
d the larger part of his money to {
he care and keeping of one Burdick, {
Who appears to have been self-con-
tituted guardian of the painter.
Vehman had turned over four years
go $4,000 to him for investment,
nd at the time of his disappearance
he money was still invested. The I
ecord shows that whenever Web !
ian bought anything about the city )
e would give an order on Burdick {
mot the cash, but an order on Bur S
ick. The record shows that only
few days before his disappearance ;
Iehman went to Burdick and bor- +
owed $40. That Dietzel knew that +
lehman had money on his person I
hen or at any other time is not i
isclosed in the record
REDITORS NOT PRESSING HIM.
"Now, it is further insisted that
ietzel committed this murder for L
lie benefit of his creditors. Just
ecause he paid on the following =
ny $S lodge dues, $S for a pair of :
ousers and SIS on SIS note that
3 had given to his sister-in-law c
lnnot be taken to indicate that he Iii
i'd got this money from Wehman. I" iii