| Show 1 ERRORS IN THE REYNOLDS f 1 4 OASE CASE WE published last evening the text of tho the petition for a rehearing hearing re before the united states supreme court in the reynolds case the on which is babied ba sied fied aro the the improper reception of pi hearsay hea or secondhand second hand moby in the district court during t the trial and fhe the addition by fhe the judge rudge of ih the words vo ads at it hard jabor labor in athe 1 the sentence pronounced the gras as sign men osof error from the lith to th e to in lri the petition all ail 11 have a bearing upon th the first of ithone points s it will be seen by reference to the tho decision of the highest court J atha 0 tha y f in answer to the argument of oi 1 I the counsel for the plaintiff plain tiffin in error and the authorities quoted showing that tha tho testimony of amelia amella jane schofield at the former trial repeated by persons who were then present was not sable in that shape at ut another trial under a new indictment the rue rule being that unless uhles the witness ia hi lead dead or proven to be out side of the jurisdiction of the 1 court evidence by b y another party of what the witness had formerly testified to is not allowed the chief justice replies that no one must be permitted to take advantage man fan tage of his own wrong 11 this appears to be sound reason as as good law but its application depends upon upon the question of fact whether or not the he witness was kept from the court by the action of the defenda defendant nL the ju 7 tice lumps jumps to the conclusion trat she was but theres there thero is no proof 0 of f i be found in the record the benefit of a doubt on this malter matter is not nol accorded to the defendant lii in the trial who la Is the plaintiff in error erron but it is assumed in one sweeping assertion that ho he voluntarily kept the witness away let bet us see how much foundation there Is for or this from the record of the trial it appears that a deputy marshal I 1 destined tek tes tiled tined that he went weilt to mr reynolds house with wilh a subpoena which he had filled up with the name of amelia JanSch and on asking for mary jane schofield was wab w informed ahe she was riot at home anthon and on asking defendant where fhe he 1 was he replied that you will have to find out aho ho thought defendant added she does not appear in this case 1 1 the court at 9 p m issued a sub poona for amelia jane behof leia lela returnable instanter and at 10 next mor morning the ameer testified that ho he mr hous esaw hla hia first wife asked for the witness warl wati wanted ted and was told that she had hot been there for three weeks thare the re upon the court admitted three persons to testify as to ta what they I 1 heard heald the absent witness state at the former trial now where is the tho proof that the witness was kept away from the court bythe by the voluntary aci act of the defendant this might have been inferred interred by the court but inference is nog no proof the chief justice jeays bays says enough had been proven to cast the burden upon him the ac cU sedof aused of showing that he be had not been instrumental in concealing or j keeping the witness away in deel the accused was required to prove a negative was ht he la Is not the rule if it Is as fumed that the accused had bad spirit od the witness away should not the burden of the proof of this be i i upon the prosecution the ruling 1 presents BO many stra strained hied points i in id favor of the court bola and against the appellant that titis it is very wide 0 open an to strong suspicion of an intention lo 10 stretch the law beyond due limits if necessary to dispose of tho the case cese suitably r to popular prejudice the addition of the words at hard labor I 1 Is s clearly a violation of J the law and whether intentional or otherwise tends to vitiate the sen ten sentence tence in view of these points the appellant is 18 justly entitled to a re to hearing but if it remains to be seen been whether the court will avail itself of bome borne technical objection to the opening reopening re of the case or will give the accused the benefit of a full and impartial presentation of the errors involved therein it is thought by some that the supreme e court of the united states does doea no not t grant ro hearings of cases decided but buh butth isis a mistake the rule being that a rehearing bearing re ia Is allowable if the court a so 0 grants a and nd a decision may be reviewed during g the term in which it was waa rendered for all ail allot of which numerous examples might be cited |
