A Black Miner’s Last Chance: Court Refuses William Holmes a New Trial
Convicted of killing William B. Russell in a drunken brawl at Franklin, Holmes loses his bid for a new trial—then his lawyers challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
William Holmes, a Black miner, convicted of murdering William B. Russell at Franklin during a drunken brawl on January 25 last, was brought into court yesterday to hear Judge J. Z. Moore's decision on a motion for a new trial, which the judge had taken under advisement. Judge Moore reviewed the case fully and finally denied the motion.
In his review Judge Moore said that owing to the great importance of the case, both to the defendant and to society, he had carefully considered the facts. He then went over each point argued on the hearing of the motion for a new trial, which he disposed of and brushed aside as untenable grounds on which to grant a new trial. One of the points was misconduct of the bailiff. In this it appears that the case was given to the jury about 4:30 p.m.; that at 8:20 p.m. the court instructed the bailiff to ask the jury if they were likely to reach a verdict soon; that the bailiff opened the door and asked the question and was answered by a juror; that the bailiff stood in the door in plain view of the court, and was heard to say, ‘Well, hurry up.’ The truth of it was that after getting an answer to his question a juror had expressed a wish to send a communication to his wife, and to him the bailiff had said, ‘Well, hurry up,’ which explained away the matter to the satisfaction of the court.
Judge Moore disposed of all the other points in a similar manner, and said the defendant had had a fair trial, uninfluenced by improper considerations, and that the motion for a new trial would be denied.
Holmes' attorneys, after taking an exception to the decision, filed a motion in arrest of judgment and argued it on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to try the cause, and that the facts stated in the information did not constitute murder under the laws of the state of Washington. The alleged want of jurisdiction was based on the statute that says that the judge or a majority of the judges of a county shall empower a judge of another county to come and sit. After a lengthy argument on this point Judge Moore took the matter under advisement to hunt up the law on the subject and will render his decision today.
“The defendant had had a fair trial, uninfluenced by improper considerations.”
The case is a reminder that in 1894 a Black miner's fate could turn on a bailiff's offhand ‘hurry up’ and a judge's confidence that the trial was fair. The article's casual racial label belongs to its era; the question of equal justice in King County courtrooms does not.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.