Show I REVISIN FOIl DREYFUS Court Will Institute Supplementary Inquiry BUT RELEASE IS DENIED GROUNDS UPON WHICE DEC SION I BASED Documents Produced Do Not Place Court In Position to Decide Merit of Case and Ground Ext For Supplementary PceedgsA noucement Calmly Received ParIs Oct 29At the opening of the court of cssaton today M onard resumed his argument In behalf of the Dreyfus family Insisting that the bor dereau was not In the handwriting of Drefus or an imitation by him of the writIng of Major Esterhaz The later hypothesis counsel contInued was absolutely ab-solutely improbable I i was an Imi taton the author of I must be a third Dart I It was no imitation the author au-thor of the bordereau he asserted can only be Major Esterhazy himself Continuing Con-tinuing M Monard pointed out that the honor of the army was not invOlved In-vOlved In the doings of the courtmar ta as like other courts they can err without their honor suffering After L Monard closed his argument the court retired to deliberate REVISION GRANTED The court of casstion has delded to grant a revision of the Drefus case and will Institute a sUDlementar inquiry In-quiry The court howcer has declined to order the release of Drefus l1 Yvos Guyot In Suede today asserts as-serts that the secret documents In the Dreyfus case were burned some days 10 10The decIsion of the court Is as follows fol-lows In view of the letter of the minister min-ister of justice dated Sept 10 iSIS inclosing in-closing arguments of the public prosecutor pros-ecutor denouncing to the court the con demnaton pronounced by the first courtmartlal of the military government govern-ment of Paris on Dec 22 189 against Alfred Dreyfus then a captain of artillery ar-tillery attached to the general staff In view of all the document In the case and also of articles 443 to 446 of the code of criminal procedure amended by the law of June 10 1895 relatIve to he admlssabit of an application in prooer form for redeclslon I Whereas The matter has been brought before the court by the public prosecutor In virtue of the express er del of the minister of justice Whereas The application comes wIthn the category of the cases con temDlat in article 443 and has been Introduce within the period fixed by article 44 Whereas The judgment a revision of which Is demanded has the force of a chose judge Whereas The document nroduced do not place the court in a position to decIde all the merits oC the case and there Is ground for making a supplementary supple-mentary Inquiry H For these reasons the court declares the application to be in proper form and legally admissable and states that it will Institute a supplementary InQuiry In-Quiry and detlares there Is nb ground at the present moment for deciding on d + the public prosecutors application for I a suspension of the penalty I The judges of the court were occu I pled for three hours and a half In con I slderlng the judgment The public I whose admission to the court was regulated reg-ulated with the greatest care awaited I the decision with marked calmness During the suspension of busIness the public crowded Into the lobby and there I was evident anxiety to hear the cr diet There was no demonstration when the court rose The decision created no public excite meat and complete tranquility prevails on the streets I |