OCR Text |
Show mROICT AGIST I . HOWARD STANDS Bp Highest Court in Land Passes on Appeal in lioeiVl Case. I I ACri SFD SKNTFAl EH TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT l Demanded New Trial on Ground of Irregular Handling of Jury. WASHINGTON. Jan. 2. The Supremo HSlirt today affirmed the decision of the Htantucky Court of Appeala In the caw of Jamr . u Howard i the Btata of Kentu-k Howard wan tried u.r-. i tima In tho fin nit rm.ri of franklin 1 County. Ki-ntiiiky, on ihe charge ..' .'. derlng Gov. G b i. n inl ,.:! J . I tltn. H u now unrif-r sentence t I nr.' lmprlnri merit. hmI , . i i to this court t. nr. jr. ft . u v. ol UM f ruling of tho Kentmky i our I ..r Appi dl afflrrolnK a drl.,n of the I'lnult rourl again t allowing him another trial. HI pBrindpal allcRatlon was that tb pro-Basedlntrs pro-Basedlntrs of the trial court In the maHor I of weier-tinK "i-i i:. harglng j irj men n i lrrejruliir Dlbcharpe of Juror Qucstionod. Justh Mi K I'M n ii ii :i . r-l Mm 5 affirming the conviction of I f . r 1 fm I killing Wiiium ; i.. i lli ri le wed the I cnnipiiiint of Howard's attorney i thai the i discharge of J i' Alixun w D vlnlatluii uf Mm l i I arJa , i,i JillC' Mi Kerir..i Can't Assume Error. I "Wo eann it asmimi' error In the ilr-. ilr-. clsi'in of tin CiMiri of Appeali We SC-lj SC-lj Cept It, hs we in.- I.imiihi ,, , . lect exposition of the law of (he Si . i iflOmon . .i 1 1 1 1 . .i ii nil " WfOjUlr- 'Hi ..Ii' In-. In. I !.. Stul. mlV applleil affi.nl .iilnMIT in error Bi juroc'-'S'.. RH those words won am I h Btho PV)iirii . mil um tidnicnl W Hunk m it did. Power of State Recognized. I "It la not necessary to enter Into a HSnfthy discussion of what constitutes due proi of law Tli it ii.iw i,. . I, , In n numhi-r of r:nc. and th r. Ii nottl Sing In tin- i.ri-i iii im- whleh i.iiN ;..r a repetition ami :m extension of the dlS-Kcusslon. dlS-Kcusslon. It in. is la' ailinlll.il ih.it Mm words 'ilue process if ' Bfl ISed In the B Kourti-' ni ti ami Knsntal rlghus. What Uiom are i ever he the rnim- uf mu.-h illHpute In g$ giving them limn lion, howevci II wai Knot deMlgfieil, 1 1 1 wis ol..-. r v .1 Mm- Chief Justice In re Converse supra, to interfin- with the power of the State jHLto prut, i i the in. h liberty nnd property IBjkf Itx ' IUS : EKlint pi.wer in thi 1 1 1 1 J u d tea 1 1 on ol the Fcourts of the Slate, In .hIiiiIiiImi. ring the prni'i provided hy the law of the State . 'I'll. Wm. I- are lippo-lte III the , Beam What Is Complained Of. B "Of ! -1 .1. .. - plaint I fY In nr.'! . .tn plaint The discharge of a Juror before he was sworn nnd the absence of the plaintiff in error from the examination i.i th. ,un.r by the presiding Judge. But plaintiff In error consented, through his .,-.1. t.. i. examination, and there Is not an Intimation that the Juror selected se-lected In Alexander" place was not as competent as he. Nor -nn he say that 1 1.. , .. ..ir. ..f Ah niider i..k from the IPlhi r x who had teen chosen their competency to try the ease or to give in plaintiff In error the right to a new panel." |