Show TRYING SAVE HAWORTH Petition for n Rehearing in Spite of Refusal 9 A petition for a rehearing In the case of the State of Utah vs Nathan F Han Ha-n was filed In the Supreme court 1 yesterday by the attorneys for the ap pellant who stands convicted of murder mur-der In the first degree for the death of Thomas Sandall at Layton and who was recently denied a new trial In the Apt Ap-t pellate court Thoformer appeal was denied on the ground that the newly discovered evidence which It was proposed pro-posed to introduce was cumulative and impeaching and the case was remanded for execution according to law The petition which was med by Attorneys At-torneys Weber and Braffet and J M Hamilton yesterday asks that a rehearing re-hearIng be granted on the following I three grounds First the court erred I in saying that most of appellants newly discovered evidence Is cumulative and the balance Impeaching Second the court has erred in its opinion wherein it states that the newly discovered evidence evi-dence does not meet the requirements necessary for a new trial on newly discovered dis-covered evidence Third the court misapprehended mis-apprehended some of the facts in this cause Appellant therefore prays that this cause be reexamined and that a rehearing re-hearing thereof be granted by the court In the petition numerous authorities are cited in support of the contention that the Supreme court erred In classifying t classi-fying tho newly discovered evidence as 1 cumulative and Impeaching and a comparison com-parison of the case with that of the Slate vs Campbell in which newely discovered dis-covered evidence was cumulative and in which a new trial was granted by the Utah Supreme court Is made The petition pe-tition on this point is worded as follows fol-lows It was no more material than the newly discovered evidence in this caseno more Importantand the showing show-ing of diligence was not clear A comparison com-parison of the two cases df the newly discovered evidence in the Campbell case with the newly discovered evidence in the Haworth case will demonstrate that the showing In the latter case Is much stronger than In the former The Haworth case being a capital case the rule should not be enforced with the same strictness as in cases where life Is not at stake The petition concludes Keeping in mind the definition of cumulative evi dence as given by the authorities at the beginning of our argument we re spectfully ask that the court grant de fendant a rehearing so that we may be given a further opportunity to demonstrate demon-strate that of the newly discovered evi l dence the greater part is neither cumu lative nor impeaching We do not know r that we could say much in addition to what our former briefs containbut in a case where human life is at stake we i are justified in asking for a further hearing believing as we do that a re 1 investigation and a rehearing might result f re-sult in a modificatlpn of the courts dec laration that defendants newly discov ered evidence is either merely cumula cumula ing further that such modification would change the courts conclusion |