New Britain Herald Newspaper, October 8, 1925, Page 12

- NEW BRITAIN DAILY HE R\] D THURSDAY, OCTOBER & 1925. EE—— e e e e e = = should be set aside and a new trial [ request as & result of which & time- | evidence offercd by the state to | owner of the urtleles introduced | “The elalm x x x that the state |show the commission of other| (he accused way obtained.! ordercd, X X % % In permitting ir- |table of the scheduly of tralns on | prove the facts upon which the |cvidence Ly the state as being in|falled to prove beyond reasonable | crimes. he cighth asslgnment complal \ vant testimony to come before |the New York, New Haven and ' charge was based This summary | is possession, his clahin as to most | doubt and by the testhinony of two “The particular evidence s not! of the defondant's chullenge fo th e jury for thelr consideration, in|Iartford rallroad was allowed to go ' follows through the course of the of these articles being that they be. [witnesses, or the equivalent thereof, [ pointed out™ and then follow more array of the jury punel st suin ARGUF" TUI]AY allowing display of ammunition aml to the jury tor their consideration trial, the wiinesses produeed, the |I¢ d 1o a group, of which he, the the facts essential to a charge of [ references to court de@isions, monded UThe statement ol i firearms X & x it did interfere with | *The defense eluims that this wis oxhibits oftered and admitted 1 1 was a member murder in the first degree x x x 18| The fifth and sixth assignment of | court 1x convinelng a8 fo - reasont reasoning, and we claim X x ¥ an crror concludes: “The state clubmed tht e evidence was conflicting wnd bardly tenable, x x 8 The testimony | errors allege error lu fhut the court | tor the distribution mu crror was manifest on its face that Point X the shooting (of Skelly) was done (je trial court very properly refused #0d the exhibits introduced by the |allowed In evidence certain exhibits - The ninth assignment dvitds witl (Continued from Uirst Vage) o verdict was unjust and the! That the court erred in Ms charge with malice aforethought, wilfully sot uxide a verdict based on con- Stale form, we think, a network of | for Identleation. the arguments ot the wttormeys (o1 SR | power of diserction which the trial en it Hmited the jury in consider- deliberately, with premeditation and ing vvidence. s x x x The state’s | “Videnca x x x and the reading of “It does not uppear whut these phe state, “This & 8 % 8 Is 80 general gate the withesses for the state and Gourt hud, was abused ng the degroes of murder with specitic intent 1o kill, and it cise was complete, Tnsofar as the [the evidence in cold print reinforces | exhiblts are but they —upparently jn character that it ts diflicuh 1o { | Point V Point X1 the accused mun armed with the cyjdencs was obtalnable ¥ x x x the (e conelusions reached.” velate lo stute exhibits (Lheee confine our treatient of 1t 1o et in denying such a motion made by | Clons Biata gri0a L8R 0080 Rayat b Al LarA A Sarhoss aan R : . books X x They were relevant . | Uhut frrelevant testimony was a jerate purposs and intent to XN XN were presented by som Evidence Analyzed P00KS-. X X X X yowere relevant sopabile Hunts" Here rollow guoti No person shall be convieted of any and murder any person who should il ladmisaibl. x xx und wire IRLAE] ol TrGin (e syidenge: ity ¥he' detendant owed in evidence by the trial court “While one Catharine I3 Wi John Marshall. for the stute testl. - Crime punishable by th without interfere with him in the commi testifying for the f 1 testimony of at least two wit- | sjon of suld burglary (a department dant moved to exelu nesses, or that which 18 equivalent ' store in New Britain) or in the the case, 50 that tho wit 211 ot wiiioh exhibits wore & part of il ; y | lowing of cither of sald safes. not know what cuch testific e S e L s It is the con on of the d “Phe defense was an alibi; 1 8¢ o sume motion Wi won fenge that evidence has not been in- qaecused offered ¢ b0 10 prowd subsequently the same motion AR AR LA e | i V- ecused red evidence 1o proy 1 whom testifle The third assignment of error al \ inct happenings, | | (hat “the court allowed Ir. conneeted with the aceused X X % of pefervuees (o Chapman's chivic The state pointed oul that & yep and other crimes and suitenee valiroad time table was admiited by reement of state and defense counsel in open court as to uitroglycerine, one James vere so reluted 10 pelevant and immaterial festimony 5 1o show without ques- 1o come befora the jury on a state- character of the homicide jpent made by the state’s attorney recused was the per- | that he would luler conneet it up claims the aecused agreed 1o adit o erime, NN X, It 18 not clear x x x x what the The Seventh Complaint it and "It ds too date after an un made again by the defendant, X X X troduced that meets with the re- that he was not in New Britain on 2 1 he . b ropawrt of the yjdence ¢ . sign- The seventh asslgnment of error |fuvorable verdiet to claim that th quirements of the statute above' the morning of the homicide v vidence is o which the assign e seventh assignment of crrol : W repentedly connected Although the accuse 1 is not entitlec > ) % P - 2 as of right to sequestration of wit it SRS Xex & 8 cited ent refers to overruling the accused mo = Boskes {0 will genarally be geantediip, SN hiEhly prejuiligialife copnack on Point X11 Tault With Alibi n aceord. (Here 'uH‘u\'\l.u] A Here follows unalyses of parts of | tion for change of venue, “s x s tl The eleventh asgignment ekt S e el i with erimes o T e e % o meenaea ANl Dot oftar 1t meilen pogistlibibaparis \l_‘f the evidence beartng upon what | nccuscd falled utterly (o show any |to denfal of fhe detendint’s motion motions were mado In behalf of the ' hat i € oke of T4UOT, g oy jant's motion for change in 4Ny evidene ow his wher = evidenee) x x ¥ the inc ‘»I“"'f‘ le ' witnesses sald and exhibits ~which reason for u chunge of venue v § X [to segveguote withess and not to ..xv weeused in good faith and the ex ! K nitroglyacning, ) outs from 2 g . Sunday, Octoly yout v"“‘ se is H:_HYHI" were offered, with eitations from and in the second: place it s doubt- v them to remain i e -“-m clusion was asked for entirely for t g : . The brief has nany pagee of dis- 12, 1924, until January 18, 1925, He fug of the adhl m. Sunday court declsions ful it the seeased could have voonn UThere fe oy x 8 4.|mm|“ i benefit of justice so that there could | ! y s allowed to g0 10 o06i0n of court decisions on this, offered no expznation ot his avherc- ! ! it T CRU pring- | The fourth assignment ot crror fried in another connty under the crror and certainly no o prejidics be no combining of witnesses or sug- | 'l X X x xwhic ] o nd “the duty of the court to chango | abouts after that hour to support (il Mass. as late o 50 p. M. complains of evidence by the state terms of the libeas corpus —pr ; = gestions to them as to how they | to prejudice t v f the Jury. pe venue,” the testimony of his alibi witnesses, ¢ wefore X X X which It 18 clalmed or tended to | ceedings by which jurisdiction over (Continued on Page 13) should testify, x xx x The defenlant Point V1 Point X111 nor did he attempt in any way he ief then up the l\v‘ | snyder testified as to an automobile, The tenth assignne nt relats sduission of @ time tabie, The 1 | hat!] o ) « . f N n the defense claims that it was an abuse of dis- was held in Massachusetts that | The defendant claims: That in a | “XPlin where he was on Sunday, of errors in the defensc's tion on the part of the court in testimony introduced he (T L Gy e CRCEED I b Sk s st L . after 2 ¢ | | makes 57 answers, and falling and refusing to segregate the fielation to the crime ch and st be strictly in accordance with | ¢/4im at 1 8 not th 1o Lanalyscs. Some of these follows Malels wilnesses when they weie apparetly introduced the sole | overy stututory provision regarding Lestifying in the court room. purpose of showing that the defend-lihe conduct of same . that the int 2 it was o netorlous eriminal is ev- laceused is entitled s During questioning of Jamcs roncous and the accused 1 entitled |drawn in accordance with the pro- Jeeney, a witness in behalf of the |y trial. vision tha s shall bo drawn state and during the : Gl [he accused, Gerald Chapman, | from a suitable m AR questioning X x x three ofticers ar0se | \ig agked on cross examination by hoxes in a manner to ensure in the presence of the jury. Obiecs e state's attorney questions the an- | reasonable distribution among th tion was noted, “such procedure Was | cwive'to which were allowed In the |several towns” efe. Franifeatly unfalr, x x x it was done | o0e® 0 R Ty that clearly| “Tho court should e for the purpose of atmospherc und | g oe) that he was a notorious {laction of the jury most sacrediy these men evidently were in the con= ' o) and these questions were in fand the decisions all trend iIn this trol of the state's attorney a sit does ||\ reievant to the specific Issues | direction and said challenge to th appear that they sat down when - ¢ o i), | panel should been allowed."” quested by Mr, Alcorn, This act did} ™ o) oiagyong from the evidence are| In conclusion the brief said interfere with giving the accused a civen, and the brief summed up on “"!‘Ms T ey s fair trial. x x x It has been held & point x x x x his credibility was [ warranted lengths but all of the where prejudice of spectators Wash 50 Ty bis character was | evidence has been certified up o vident In the frial of a case, the| 4 W by this method his um-\.mmn"hh court and the record is volumi ) T .° 5 trial should not be prrmitted to pro- | T St Imous and it is useless in attempting [‘ancy Native I ACKEREL oo i!). 15¢ »d and !lha( it o not nec Point VII {to more fully sct forth other specific at prejudice actually appea That error exists when evidence is | POrtions of the testimony and argu- it was sufficient that it did appear | (05 TN 6 court which |ments that the defense claims were || FRESH | 120 FRESH KL " 35C vad 2 it o . ligeeay ) SALMON that there was a doubt as to whether showed the commission of other|irrelevant and prejudicis allar FPLOUNDERS Al prejudice existed. X x x erimes, The law is violated in re- | Which must have affected the jury, |fj FRESH cOD 18c 'l”: ;l’,ll ’“ ML i 40c “Anything in the case that is “Wl‘(\x\rvvvg one to put questions to ac- |in trfal of a man having e AR h IR RI 1Y h. end excite pase E 4 " a L3 proper and that tends to excite pas-| L' 5 L o e drrelevant | the publicity this defendant qia |J§ VRESH BLUE 18 o | HHEEL 45 S awakan synipathy or infncnee | SUSEH DEIOONS Which are o SR el STEAK . C SWORDIISH nh C must be |t the lssue . . in this c the/tICCE the judgment of the jury mu atate went beyond the requirements| The brief of the stato in answer considered harmful, x X X In permit- 5kt case 1o g0 on atier the ect | et (e ausver must tend dlreoly) 5 Ll SRS S SRERED e [-‘ ], L Qh HADDOCK Ib. 8c o impeac ; oy State's 4 ey Hugh o of having these three officers riso | 1@ HRCRCH Poine Vit 'nnd Tllnt isalatmt YTt il el Te R G res arge 9?‘8 X x x was manifest injustice.” Reversible or exists because of #ON, recites at the outset the story Poing 111 ) b o character of the of the crime of killing James Skel- | B STHEAMING PRESH OPENED 35 That the state’s attorney failed inf y'a argument (o the ¥ a police officer of New Britain CLAMS 2 qgts 25 OVSTERS pint C his promise to conncct certain evi-1 i, Nany excerpts are quoted Conn, on October 12, 1924, and his ”‘” SH OPLNED ROUND 25 denee in behalf of the state. |from the arguments. “The state- trial before Judze Newell and a CL \\|\ & pint 35(; CLAMS ,....... quart c Quotations are made from the made by the state's attorney jury at the March term. 1925, his - evidence as to books seen in C ere 50 viclous that the jury could conviction of murder in {he first ’ man's room, relating to paper n | ot fail to become influenced and degree and the denial hy the court Th B C ¥ d FlNNAN H %DDIE “J 18C ing. inks, reproductive Processes, | controlled fo an extent that couwid of the motion to set aside the ver- € QSt ll 9 and the testimony of Shean, Hotibalmesaured oyl A oo aint e BN so had a talk about counterfcit-|standard . . . . the privilege of The brief refers fo two appeals, FINEST PACK SWEET CORN 2 cans 25 ing.” x X x “all this testimony came ; counsel is addressing the jury . one of April 14th and the other of SPECIAL NEW BEVAPORATED PEACHES 2 Ibs, before the jury x x x and surely i must never he used as a license to June 13, in the latter heing excep- MAPLE WALNUT CARES i E prejudiced the minds of the jurors state or comment upon or suggest fions to rulings upon various mo- — fxzxitw in no way connected | an inference from facts not in evi- tions of the accused, to admission ) ct > - u PAY 4P with the ac jon of murder. The ! dence "of evidence, the stafe’s attorney's I I(\l( '|'| ; ,"::‘,‘, l,:.‘ l\'\},m“:-r. YOUR court Instructed the jury to disre- | bing 1X arguments, and to the charge of e G R gard the irrelevant and prejudicial| After the case was given to the the jury. \“I\(' s 76— i 10(‘. testimony X x xx. Testimony had jury for their consideration and the Summary of Crime 4 Loaf. . oal already come in which spoke of Jury retired they returned and made Then follows the summary of the counterfeiting and it became fm-| possible for the accused to have a! e e T e tair tri ' B o | | S = Il A Kuppenheimer Topcoat were found. shooting of guns, to wit, testimony of Hance, a state witne nitroglycerine, fuse caps, exhibits i : i1 g ; found fn Shean's storehouse in ) i : L g, 2N springfield, in a hotel room in [ |94 3 < ; ~ ‘ \ ¥ Snringfield and in Hance's hom« § > i ‘ 3 ) . i | ar Muncie, Tndiana, X X X thesc hibits must have conveyed to th jury the fact that the accused stood hefore them as a counterfeiter, a e R F RN BN, NI V) A i B 0 You'll lock your best in one of these the evidence came in for their con sgeraion” s A Y i 15022 119 R sl B gl Topcoats. It will give you the desirable That the verdict was agatnst the | | ioknea: | Mo, aercadunts ot el L ) e e € ] il Al tall athletic effect—and certainly it clalm x x x x that the jury wus swayed by passion, by partialit B e e tamael oeatecta catin e =2 = o , o PR o |1 will give you unguestioned distinction, We have Tovcoats from $25.00 to $50.00 SO LONG An inch or two longer makes your Topcoat so much smarter this season. The added sl | sweep shows off the long, straight lines, the | e — — R W lower button spacing and low-hung pockets ouders, used by The New Rug Patterns and Colors Gt | Our Stock of WHITTALL'S BODY BRUSSELS e |6 i 2 WHITTALL'S TEPRAC WILTONS -~ Yo | Ye Collegtate S/wppe Is Unsurpassed If it is a Tapestry Brussel at $35.00; a 9x12 Axminster at $39.00, or a Wilton Velvet at $45.00, you'll find it in our big Rug Dept. Ready-to-Hang Overdrapes, made of soft lustrous mehair, guaranteed sunproof and tub-proof, complete with valance and tie-backs—Only $8.50 a pair. Consult our Interior Decorator. This service given without obligation or expense to you The smoothest running and best cooking range on the mar- B C P O R I E R S O 8 Ket. Perfecteven tothesmallest ) detail in labor-saving features. ¥ ° ‘4 A. CIEZYNSKI & SONS “Connecticut’s Best Furniture Store” | 517 MAIN ST.