4 The-Supreme-Court
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appeal to the Supreme Court With Sandy Olds sentenced to be hanged in November of 1889, the gamblers of Portland and around the Sound in Washington raised more funds and hired new Lawyers. H.Y. Thompson had eloquently argued the case twice. He had sowed enough doubt to hang the first jury, but the second jury had found Olds guilty of murder in the first. It may have had something to do with the ability to take the case to the Supreme Court, or Olds’s benefactors thought they could just get better Lawyers to get the result they wanted. Whatever the reason, Olds’s “friends” hired Charles Bellinger and Rufus Mallory of the firm Dolph, Bellinger, Mallory & Simon. Dolph, Bellinger, Mallory & Simon The Law firm of Dolph, Bronaugh, Dolph & Simon was formed in Portland in 1873. The members would distinguish themselves in the legal, political and Masonic history of Oregon. Portland City Directory 1875 Joseph Norton Dolph was Raised a Master Mason in Harmony Lodge No. 12 in 1868, and was the Charter Senior Warden for Portland Lodge No. 55 in 1872, he was Master of that Lodge in 1876. Joseph was Grand Master of Oregon Freemasons in 1882-83. He was elected to the United States Senate in 1883 and was Crowned 33º Honorary Inspector General by Albert Pike in 1884. Upon his election to the Senate he stepped down from the firm and Charles B. Bellinger took his place in 1883. Earl Clapp Bronaugh came to Portland practically penniless in 1868. He opened his law firm and after a couple years went in with the Dolph brothers and Joseph Simon. As a Lawyer Bronaugh had few if any superiors at the Oregon bar. Earl was a Charter member of Portland Lodge No. 55 in 1872. He left the Law firm in 1882 and went to Santa Clara, California for health reasons. Two years later he returned to Portland and started a new firm. His son Earl Clapp Bronaugh Jr. was also a Lawyer and Judge. A member of Willamette Lodge No. 2, he was Grand Master of Oregon in 1919-20 and was Crowned 33º in 1936. After Bronaugh Sr. left the firm in 1882, Rufus Mallory was brought in to take his place in 1883. Cyrus Abde Dolph with his brother Joseph, came west after enlisting in the “Oregon Escort” in 1862. He was made a Master Mason “At Sight” by Grand Master William E. Grace on April 26, 1902 (the 1st to receive that honor in Oregon), and affiliated with Portland Lodge No. 55 on November 21, 1902. He received the 33º in 1905. Joseph Dolph served as Portland City Attorney from 1864 to 1866, and Cyrus held the job for 1869-70. When Joseph left the Law firm to serve as U.S. Senator for Oregon 1883-1895, Cyrus became the first named partner in the Law firm Dolph, Bellinger, Mallory & Simon. Born in Germany, Joseph Simon came to Oregon in 1857. At age 19 he studied the Law and went in with the Law firm of Mitchell and Dolph as a student, passing the bar in 1872. He was Raised a Master Mason in 1876 in Portland Lodge No. 55 and served as Master in 1881. Later he was an Oregon State Senator from 1880 to 1898 and a U.S. Senator from 1898 to 1903. He was also elected Mayor of Portland 1909-1911. Joseph received the 33º in 1899. Bellinger and Mallory It is distressing to note the role of the next group of Masons in this story. We cannot speak to their reasoning, and must assume they saw some points of Law they felt needed to be rectified. These were men of renown, but the facts of the case make it hard to understand why they would work so long and hard to attempt to get this killer off. The case for first degree murder was strong, and the case for manslaughter week. After all, Olds had shot a fleeing man in the back, who had not pulled his own gun, and then unloaded his weapon into his dying victim’s back. Perhaps Sandy Olds struck them as a sympathetic character and his tales of bullying and harassment played to their emotions, or perhaps it was just about the money. The papers felt clearly it was about the latter, and would not hold back their scorn, which through them was felt by the people of Portland. It should be noted that Dolph and Simon had nothing to do with this case. As well, Mallory was not a Mason, so, on that front we are speaking about C.B. Bellinger. As will be shown, of the three judges on the Oregon Supreme Court, Chief Justice W.W. Thayer and Justice Strahan were both Masons. In fact, Brothers Thayer and Bellinger were members of the same East Portland Lodge, Washington Lodge No. 46; Justice Strahan was a member of St. Johns Lodge No. 62 in Albany. Although not specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court case, there is no reason to believe that anyone but Bellinger and Mallory took the case to the court, and they stuck with it until the end. Newspapers around the state and the country responded to the news. San Francisco Examiner Tue. Dec. 17, 1889 Another chance for Sandy Olds. Portland, December 16. – The supreme Court to-day, in the noted murder case of Sandy Olds, reversed the decision of a lower court and granted the defendant a new trial. Olds is under sentence of death and was to have been hanged in November, but an appeal was taken. Olds has already had two trials. The jury the first time disagreed and at the second trial returned a verdict of murder in the first degree. Morning Oregonian Tuesday, December 17, 1889 Sandy Olds, the Murder of Emil Weber, gets a New Trial. Salem, Oregon, December 16 – special telegram. In the supreme court today the case of the state of Oregon, respondent, versus Charles Olds, appellant, on appeal from Multnomah county, was decided. The judgment of a lower court was reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. Opinion is written by Judge Strahan, Chief Justice Thayer concurring and Judge Lord dissenting… The Oregonian Portland Tuesday, December 17, 1889 On Frivolous Grounds The supreme court of the state has ordered that Olds be granted a new trial. The order is based on the ground that “while the district attorney has a right to cross examine a witness for the defendant as to his interest in the result of the trial to enable the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witness, he must confine himself to the point at issue and not take in collateral facts incapable of presumption from the principal material facts.” Translated out of the jargon employed by special pleaders to defeat the ends of justice, the above victim in this particular case means that the court before which Olds was tried erred in allowing the district attorney to ask Tom Williams, a witness for the defendant, who the persons were that contributed money for the defense of Olds. Williams, when put on the stand, testified to having had a conversation with Weber on the day of the homicide in the course of which Weber had threatened to kill Olds on sight. (“Defendant had called Thomas Williams, who had known defendant and deceased, Emil Weber, for five years, and he testified that the latter, speaking of his eye, which had been injured in a previous fight with Olds said: “I am pretty near ready for another battle, and it will not be a fist fight this time. He can lick me in a fistfight, but I will have no fist fight next time. I will just kill the son of a bitch; that is what I will do with him.”)1 He (Williams) further testified that Weber’s reputation among his associates was that of a vicious, turbulent and quarrelsome man, and that Olds’s character was that of a peaceable, quiet and orderly man. Williams was one of the gang of gamblers who sided with Olds in the quarrel that resulted in Weber’s murder. The district attorney therefore wishing to show the bias of the witness toward the defendant began by asking Williams if he had not taken a great deal of interest in the case. Witness acknowledge that he had and the further admission was drawn from him that he himself had contributed $600 for defense of Olds and had collected from others $900 more for the same purpose. Witness was asked who contributed this last sum. He said that Sliter and McNamara who kept a gambling house in Portland had contributed $100, that Paul Fuhr the gambler had contributed $100 and that Frenchy Gratton another gambler had contributed $200. Witness was thus asked if the persons who contributed this money were not among those who had denounced Weber as a turbulent vicious and quarrelsome man, and he answered that they were. The supreme court now grants a new trial on the assumption that the court below erred in permitting the district attorney to ask the witness who they were who contributed to the fund for the defense Olds. To set aside a verdict on grounds so frivolous is not only scandalous in itself but is in violation of the statues of the state. It is scandalous because it produces a travesty of justice and tends to bring judicial proceedings into contempt, it is unlawful because the statutes plainly say after hearing the appeal the court must give judgment without regard to the decision of the questions which were in the judgment of the court below or to technical errors defects or exemptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Here was a gang of gamblers contributing money for the defense of an associate who had murdered another gambler to whom this witness had given a bad character while giving his slayer a good one, and it was in every way proper in every way necessary to the ends of justice that the jury should know this in order to form an opinion as to the value of the testimony of the witness and to be able to judge as to the sources of his evidence regarding the reputation of the defendant and his victim.