Austrian Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in Jewish Patricide Case

March 12th and 13th were set aside by the Supreme Court of Vienna to hear the appeal of the counsel for the defense in the case of Philip Halsmann, a Jewish student, who was sentenced some time ago to ten years imprisonment by the lower court of Innsbruch on the charge of patricide.

The decision of the Supreme Court to grant the hearing was viewed as recognition on the part of the bench of the public sentiment, given expression in the press, that the jury in the Innsbruch court sentenced the Jewish student on insufficient evidence, being swayed by anti-Jewish prejudice. The case, being the first Jewish patricide case, has attracted wide attention.

The sentence imposed by the Innsbruch court upon Philip Halsmann was based chiefly on the testimony of a young Tyrol shepherd boy. He testified that he had seen Philip Halsmann and his father in the Tyrol mountains during a vacation there and that the son had pushed the father into a ravine, causing his death.

The elder Halsmann was a wealthy dentist of Riga, Latvia. He was the owner of real estate in Palestine and in Switzerland. In the Summer of 1928 the father and son spent their vacation together in the Tyrol mountains. Following a mountain climbing expedition, the elder Halsmann’s body (Continued on Page 4)

was found in a ravine. the son was arrested, charged with patricide.

The trial which took place in the Innsbruch court several months ago, attracted wide attention in Austria, the anti-Semitic journals playing up the case greatly. A group of students organized a committee championing Philip’s innocence and was instrumental in bringing about the motion for the appeal. The trial was attended by many of Halsmann’s relatives who came from various countries.

His mother, his aunts and uncles were present when young Halsmann protested his innocence, declaring he was the victim of a conspiracy to convict him. The fact that the jury did not recommend capital punishment but imprisonment was taken by newspaper editorials as proof that there was not sufficient circumstantial evidence for conviction, but that, swayed by prejudice, they did not set him free. Innsbruch is a nest of anti-Jewish prejudice, being one of the strongest Hakenkreuzler centers in Austria. The jury consisted mainly of professional men, members of such organizations. A request for change of venue was not granted.