Show PETER MORTENSEN IS DOOMED TO DIIE E Supreme Court Rejects Petition Pe-tition for New Trial NO AVENUE OF ESCAPE Efforts to Stay Execution Will Not Avail Justices Act on tho Petition With Commendable Promptness c Point of Oral Testimony Peter Mortensen must face his executioners execu-tioners t and pay the death penalty for tho murder of James K Hay one of till foulest foul-est leeds over committed In tho State of Utah That la what the decision of tho Supremo court which denied his petition for a rehearing yesterday virtually means The petition i > was filed III tho Supreme court on September Jllh after an extension exten-sion of twelve days had been granted and till decision rendered yesterday comes clown In loss than a week From this It IB seen that tho convicted mtndeior hrs but the most meager of chances for a new trial I JUDGE MORSE UTllELiD Judge Morao 1 before whom tho case vas tried Is upheld In every contention ly Lime Supreme Justices Should MorteriHons attorney at-torney Stewart Stewart make another motion for a rew trial In the District court it Is certain that It will bo overruled over-ruled by Judge Morse Ft is rlso more thnn likely that ho will not Issue a ecrtlllcMto of probable cause which will prevent a staying of tho dale of execution rime I Supremo court will send down Its romltri till In a few days and then the Cay on which Mortcnson Is to die will nrj mIxed by the District Judge If a ocrtllleale of probable cause In not Issued In the District Dis-trict court the life of the prisoner cannot be prolonged no matter what the proctud Ings may be In regard to a second aprerl POINT OF ORAL TESTIMONY In the petition for a new trial thin defendant de-fendant also asked that ho bo granted a now hearing before the District court cn his motion for a new trial I end that itt ZKJA limrlng he be permitted to Introduce oral evidence on the misconduct on the part of the Jury In support of his motion Time main ground set out In the petition Inr I a rehearing was that tine lower court erred In ruling out certain oral testimony claimed to be of great advantage to the defendant The Supreme court It watt alleged al-leged erred In Its opinion In holdlm that the Jury while viewing the premises of the defendant was not utility of misconduct miscon-duct prejudicial to the Interests of the defendant de-fendant t On thIs point Imnst ice Mefarty handed down a brief written oplaon which In substance was to tho effect that the attorneys for the defense did not snbmll their motion for the introduction of the I oral testimony In the manner provided pro-vided by law and that him lower court did right in refusing Its Introduction Tin attorneys wiro told thai I they must submit an affidavit from than witness on the mat ten and that the motion would then be considered This Instruction was not complied com-plied with and the notion IIC i HuUo 1 Morsels Morse-ls sustained In every particular Chief lustko Baskln and Justice JJ irUh I tin Inn er writing tine opinion In tho t is did not consider the point raised of i siifluiiint Importance I to state their reasons for denying deny-ing the petition In writing HARD FIGHT FOR HI The petition claimed that I time bar of lie Stale as well as time defendant wis entitled en-titled to know under what vlrciimuuinuxH oial I testimony may bo 1mm noIule d In < IIP n poit of a motion for a in w trial on Jin ground of misconduct eli tin part of Ito Jury To answer l this iuesllon I VMH till ub iect of Iho opinion by Justice MrOartv Stewart it Stewart mado a hard liht for the life of heir I client but his last chance In the courts was lout when th I > Suprino court denied tho I petition I for p ivluvirhii 1e may auk for me ivy at ih lauulK of the t Board of Pardomi but Jhonld they look with disfavor upon his application he his no other recourse to save his life |