The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-01-16
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals
OF New York. I'm affirming the convic-
zion of Hans Schmidt for the murder
OF Anna Aurnuller, as the result of
which he must die during the week Of
February IA, passes on many interesting
questions. The syllabus of the opinion
follows.
u. n motion for n new trial I'm a
murder case upo the ground Of newly
discovered evidence must be denied
where such evidence consists of AN af-
fdavit by defendant stating that his
confession. proved at the trial, that he
committed the murder and his defence
OF insanity were false that. on the con-
trary, his victim was not murdered but
died from a criminal operation per-
formed upon her TO which defendant
and others were parties. and that he
made the confession and feigned in
sanity In the hope that he might be ac-
quilted and his confedcrates 20 free.
Such statement Is not newly discovered
evidence within the meaning OF the
statute and. therefore. the courts have
no power to grant a new trial thereon,
and 1t is not necessary to determine
whether his present story II true.
."2. Where such defendant. in support
OF his plea OF insanity. told the physl-
clans who examined him at the trial
that he had heard the voice Of God call
'"N hl'ot llIIh W MN lnf MO1llit III ~
sacrifice and atonement. II was error
for the trial Judge In his Instructions to
the jury to charge, In substance, that
even W the defendant believed In good
faith that God had appeared 10 him
and commanded the sacrifice of his vic
tim. and this belief was n dclusion. the
result of "a defect of reason, the de-
PENDANT must non the less answer to
the law II he knew the nature and
ulal1tN oil The act. and knew tina II
was wrong. IN the sense that II was
forbidden by the law OF the state, The
word wrong IN the STATUTORY definition
should not receive so narrow a con-
structior In the light Of it's history
and the authorities. collatcd and dis
cussed herein. defining and explaining
the word. II cannot he held that the
word wrong IN the statutory definition
IN limited To legal as opposed 10 moral
wrong. The defendant, however. by
conceding that the issue of his sanity
was correctly determined by the jury.
has forfeited his right to avail himself
of the error In the charge. There H.
nothing 10 show that he IL mentally
incompetent to conduct the appeal. to
advise with counsel. or to understand
the meaning and consequences OF his
own affidavit. If. however, the confess
sion IN only another manifestation OF
disease, the law provides a remedy.
80. 4 contention by defendant that
his conviction should he set aside. un-
der the rule that n conviction shall not
he had upon " plea OF guilty where the
crime charged Is or may he punishable
by death, Is untenable. The statute has
no application to this case. The de-
PENDANT was not convicted upon a plea
Of guilty lie has been tried before a
duly organized court and found guilty
and there was no denial Of due process
Of law"
Tn. Central LnW Journal says that the
old fable Of the lawyers and the oyster.
In which the ownership o: an oyster
being contested. the lawyers ate the
oyster and gave n shell 70 each Of Ia
~ltigants. is matched by II story OF a law
suit which Il Russian Journal relates
as entirely authentic: In n city OF
Poland. II appears. two men 'iine int,
court with a suit over the ownership Of
an umbrella which had been left IN 4
restaurant Each one introduced evidence
70 prove tNat the umbrella was his
BEING unable to match the wisdom ~
solomon by dividing the umbrella he.
tween them. the Judge postponed the
case. Pending its decision the umbrella
was left In the Judges private room.
Later. M he left the court To 20 home.
tho Judge found that the weather was
rainy ~ WIFI Nii'h w MS IW'l1l. liN'N
the umbrella which was in litigation. and
spread II over hts head In the street
IN his way home he went into u restau-
rant and left the umbrella on the rack :
and when he was ready - leave ~"
place he found that, Il had been taken
away by some unknown customer. Then
hc bought another umbrella and took
y 10 his court room. When tho caeH
came up the l''lgants wcro confrouts |
with n uTI v.ith9r usaa ql'o =, ll.nsfs,.
II as his own. The court thereuron incl
them both FOR invoking the law on D
frivolous r-etext and they departed
empty handed and de ided'y mon.
suited
The dissenting opinion ~ a Missouri
Judge I'm Jeude vs. Sims SAID IN pant.
This opinion was written as a pr.u-
ciptl opinion. but II was seed that eel
by the wayside or on stony ground. and
hut no matter. SIN entertaining the
same views after IN hauC. ]
file the same opinion rs a dissent.
Maybe the stone which the builders 70
jcctod,' g.. QUEEN sahe''
~ counsel knew thar an unfair p~cs-
enta,iou TO tho Jury would prevent tho
jury being allowed TO pass upon t'S
case he would he careful not 80 .raus-
rreSs-unless he We're q fool tro". =
no known cure f0r hat "or E'l1rll.
!, in Dale vs. Toronto r G. - OF.
l. Rep, l"i
Therc appears g. have hccu u ooa'',t
Of opinion among the early FnGi al
Judges as - whether breaking oUi Vts
burglary At common law. Tho same
doubt as - whether breaking ont Ccs-
stltuted burglary a. common law, which
,,tg,.i a,4nt.~ .hN ,.ylf. tF#E'r.h I4llp..-