243

12 WEEKLY NEBRASKA STATE JOURNAL FRIDAY MAY 29 1891

Sheedy when she told of having gone out to get a pitcher of water on the night of the assault; by her own testimony as to the window curtain of the east window; also by Tyndall; by Stepney, Monday's cousin, and Mattie McNeal, as to the exchange of overcoats; by the same witness as to his going to George Botts' after the murder, getting his wife and going home; by William Chinn as to his subsequent whereabouts that night, and his lameness from his fall just after he struck the blow; by Courtnay and Anna Bodenstein that he went to the Sheedy house next day to see Mrs. Sheedy and get part of his reward; by Mrs. Coll to the effect that he had hung around the Sheedy residence awaiting a chance to commit the crime; by Mr. and Mrs. Hosman to the effect that he fell down at the corner of the porch after he fired the shot early in December. These are but a few of the many details in which Mr. Hall showed that Monday's story was corroborated by the other testimony.

Mr. Stearns for Mary Sheedy.

Mr. Stearns took up the confession and pointed out the fact that Monday claimed that Mrs. Sheedy met him on the back porch that fatal night, hugged and kissed him, gave him a goblet of whiskey and did a number of other acts which it would have been impossible to perform in less than ten minutes, and yet the testimony shows that in less than ten minutes before the assault Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy were sitting in the parlor together. He said further that the testimony of William Chinn would show that Monday's story was untrue and that his presence at Chinn's place as Chinn told of it could not be accounted for upon the theory that he had struck that blow, which was struck between 7 and 8 o'clock.

He then took up Jim Malone and denounced his methods in general. In referring to Hymen Goldwater and his boy he denounced them in particular and the Jews in general saying that they descended from a pawnbroking race whom Christ had scourged from the temple. He said that Malone and Goldwater had conspired to hang an innocent woman to secure the reward, and recited the testimony of L. C. Burr to show that Goldwater had admitted that Malone had offered to pay for the identification of the cane; that he had admitted to Burr that it made no difference whether or not he had ever had the fatal cane in his shop, he wanted his money all the same. He quoted the testimony of Carder and Barnes to show that the cane was one formerly owned by Carder instead of the one Monday had purchased from Goldwater. Goldwater had testified as he did because he wanted to stand in with the officers.

So with the ring. It was claimed that it was also found in the possession of a pawnbroker, and his pawnbroker had joined in the conspiracy that he might stand in with the police.

He thought it no wonderful coincidence that Monday knew all of the facts necessary for him to make up his story, as they had all been made public by the press, and in connection with this argument Mr. Stearns strained his lungs somewhat in a bitter denunciation of the press as an enterprising disseminator of news. He claimed that every fact needed for Monday to make up that story and make it fit the surroundings could have been attained from reading the news papers prior to Monday's arrest.

He took up the fact as shown by the evidence that that cane was not found on the Sheedy porch for some twenty minutes after the assault and that the officers had previously looked all over the porch with a lantern for traces of the blood of the assailant.

He reverted but briefly to the methods employed in securing Monday's various confessions and said he was content to leave the competency of them as evidence entirely with the jury. He believed the testimony was sufficient to convince them that it was incompetent, but even if it were not there were some things in it that stamped it as totally untrue. Some portions of that confession are so contrary to every principle of human nature, so opposed to anything that one ever encounters, that they are beyond the power of belief upon any evidence. The countsel had depicted Mrs. Sheedy as a woman devoid of refinement. The hand of the Holy Father was always legible. The pictures that he draws and the line he writes upon the himan countenance are always easily read, and he pretended to say that no on could look into the face of Mary Sheedy and say that she was not a cultured woman, endowed at least with the instincts of her sex. He went on to depict that revolting nature of the accusations against her and contended that all nature refuted them. He contended that there was no record of anything so revolting as was her charged, probably in the whole United States.

He ridiculed the idea that, Monday McFarland being overwhelmingly in love with Mrs. Sheedy, as is claimed, should be the one selected to whom Mrs. Sheedy should appeal for the murder of her husband, telling him at the same time that she wished it to permit her to enjoy another lover. No such accommodating lover had ever existed, yet this was the theory upon which the great state of Nebraska depended for a motive in the case, and which the jury was expected to believe was enough to induce Monday to commit the crime.

He ridiculed the theory advanced by Mr. Hall as to Mrs. Sheedy's motive. It was claimed by him that Mrs. Sheedy desired John Sheedy murdered because she was afraid of him, and yet in another place Mr. Hall had said that she was a woman of such nerve that she could have murdered Sheedy herself had she only had the physical strength. He said Sheedy was an all-around sport and had his little loves on the side, so that Mrs. Sheedy could have easily secured a divorce, had she so wished. Divorces were not hard to get. They could be obtained on short notice and at small cost. They could be had second handed and were to be found in the pawnshops. They were about as common as anything we have, and it was all balderdash to say that Mrs. Sheedy could not get rid of her husband without murdering him if she so wished.

He contended that the jury had no right to indulge in any presumptions as to the contents of those notes sent between Walstrom and Mrs. Sheedy. The state had grieved a great deal because those notes were not introduced in evidence to prove the innocence of their contents. Those notes had been destroyed and could not be produced in court. He did not know what was in those notes and didn't want to. All he would care to know was wheather or not there was any incentive in them for the murder of John Sheady. The state had made entirely too much of those notes, many a man had received notes unknow to his wife and vice versa, and it is probable that many post-office boxes are rented for that purpose in Lincoln, but there is not record of any murders having ever arisen out of it.

Mr. Stearns Resumes.

Promptly at 9 o'clock Mr. Stearns resummed his argument in behalf of Mary Sheedy, and began by denying that there was any evidence to show that the night shirts, socks and neckties purchased by Mrs. Sheedy were the same found in the possession of Walstrom, and that, therefore, this alleged evidence of the criminal intimacy of Walstrom and Mrs. Sheedy was valueless, as it was necessary for the jury to convinced of it beyond a reasonable doubt. If there was any criminality. Walstrom was as guilty as Mrs. Sheedy. Why had he been allowed to go? The law doesn't make any distinction between man and woman in such crime. He had been allowed to go because there was not more than a shadow of suspicion against him. The utmost endeavors of the state to establish criminal intimacy between Mary Sheedy and A. H. Walstrom had signally failed.

The speaker then took up the state's argument that no one could have delivered that blow as it was delivered that night unless he had a confederate upon the inside. He said that it was not so light that one might not have stood at the door and awaited John Sheedy's coming, as Henry Krause had told how, when he started out to pursue the assailant, he did not see the lattice work and ran up against it.

"And by the way, what was Edenmuses freak doing around there at night? I would like some one to explain that to the jury. His own evidence indicates that at least one of Sheedy's shots was aimed at him and that he hid behind a tree, Mrs. Sheedy had called to come to her assistance, and assured him he would not be hurt. He rushed into the yard; she asked him him to come in and then asked him to go for the priest. He did neither, but rushed toward the back of the house and against the lattice work. If the curtain of the east window had been raised, as he claimed it was, could he not have seen that lattice work. Would not the light from the window have been very apt to disclose it to his view.

"I cannot conceive what motive could actuate an attorney to such an utterance. There is absolutely no evidence upon which to base such a cruel statement. What in the name of God, I ask, could have been done for him that was left undone. Was the wife not there beside him wiping the dew of death from his brow and moistening his lips in his hours of suffering? Was there not a consultation of physicians called and did she not willingly consent to abide by the decision of a majority of them? What, I ask, could she have done further? She did all that the msot zealous wifely devotion could prompt for a dying husband, and the assertion of counsel is brutal and unwarranted."

Mr. Stearns denied the assertion that circumstantial evidence is the strongest kind of evidence; it is the most unreliable in the world and has resulted in more mistaken convictions than any other kind of evidence. A number of instances were recited where the evidence had been most convincing, convictions and executions followed and the murders were subsequently found to have been committed by others.

He said that in view of the conflicting nature of the testimony in relation to poisoning, he did not think that the jury were prepared to believe that John Sheedy was ever poisoned. The doctors who were in the pay of the prosecution had been enabled to change their minds about what caused death because of the money there was in it. If they had noticed those symptoms they claim to have noticed on the day of their consultation, why in the name of God didn't they do something to relieve the sufferer? The speaker roasted the physicians unmercifully and claimed that they had been trained by "Dr." Lambertson, especially Dr. Winnett, who, Mrs. Stearns contended, had been trained by Lambertson to hold up John Sheedy's skull in court daintily, like a bouquet in the hands of a school girl as she tripped to school, to create a sensation, while Lambertson's bull dog grinned through the open door at the cunning of his master.

He then reviewed the testimony of Wilber Mayes to show that Krauso could not have been one of the men whom Mayers saw running away from the hose just after the shooting, as Krause was not in the yard in time, having been restrained from entering because he thought Sheedy's last shot was fired toward him.

He contented that Monday McFarland's confession was not true, and if it were true the jury should never fail to remember that it was powerless to affect Mary Sheedy. He characterized the evidence connecting her with the crime as too remote, too uncertain, too slight to ever permit of a thought of her conviction.

The speaker closed with an allegorical picture of Mercy pleading for the creation of man and promising to guide him through life, and he invoked in an eloquent manner the fulfillment of that promise of mercy.

Colonel Philpott began his argument in behalf of Monday McFarland at 9:50 a. m. by attempting to revite in detail the history of Monday McFarland, but Mr. Snell objected and the court required him to stick to the evidence. The speaker then turned his vocal attainments to vigorous discussion of Monday's confession. He said that the only evidence of miscegenation between the two defendants was in that confession, and the story therein told was abhorrent and dis probed itself. He contended that the confession had been obtained by threats and promises and should not therefore be used in evidence. It was useless for the state to cry out "Why don't you disprove the confession?" The state itself had used every endeavor to keep the jury in the dark as to how this confession was obtained, but in spite of every effort the facts had come out that the most damning methods had been restored to in order to get Monday to tell the story he did tell.

Colonel Philpott took up the testimony to show how Malone had tried in every way to frighten a confession out of Monday. He also read from the confession the many implied promises it contained, how it would be better for him to tell it all; if he wanted to save his life he must tell what was reasonable and could be believed and how there was no more danger in telling it than what he had already told. He delt upon the fact that long after Monday had begun his confession and had told what made nine typewritten pages, when asked if he didn't go down there and strike that blow, he had replied:

"No, if it is the last word I ever utter, I didn't do it."

After reading the many parts of the type-written confession showing that Monday had been led to believe that it would be better for him to confess all, the speaker turned savagely to Mr. Lamberson and exclaimed:

"Now, sir, you who are said to never take a dare, I challenge you to meet the record I have made as to the inducements offered Monday McFarland to make this alleged confession. Can you do it? Dare you do it? No, you cannot do it, any you know it. I challenge you to do it if you dare," and the diminutive speaker glared savagely at Mr. Limbertson, who sat unmoved to even a smile, although sitting down he was about as high as the speaker standing up, a fact which did not escape the spectators and did not fail to excite considerable quiet amusement.

The colonel took the testimony of each of the four physicians who had testified that death was due to morphine poisoning and pointed out the technical points in which each had exhibited a lack of information and knowledge, and condemned them for coming into court and by their halting and lame opinions attempting to swear away the lives of human beings. He referred to Dr. Hart as one of the two doctors who had testified that death was due to the blow, and referred to his remark when on the stand that he did not attend the autopsy to assist in it, but was there for private reasons, that some charges had been made against him. The speaker contended that it might be that he was there to see whether or not anything was developed to show that Sheely died from malpractice. He was the doctor who had been at the house all night. Might he not have been at the autopsy to see whether or not poison had been administered by him by mistake?

The advocate dwelt with stirring emphasis upon the utter inability of the physicians to agree as to whether death ensued from the blow or from poisoning.

The next tack of the argument was to show that because assistant counsel had been retained for the state in the case of Quinn Bohanan was not a reason why it should be justified in this case; the circumstances were vastly different. In this instance there was a fortune estimated at about $75,000 at stake.

At this point in the colonel's discourse, at 10:55, Mr. Lambertson, who, it has been noted, seldom removes his eyes for long from a study of the jurors' faces, called the attention of the court to the fact that one of the jurors was ill. A James Johnson was leaning his face forward upon his hand, with his eyes closed as if in a faint.

An investigation revealed the fact that he was too ill for duty, and as he expressed a desire to be permitted to go to his room, Judge Field adjourned court until 2 p. m.

It was learned that Johnson has been ailing for several days with a sore throat and had declined to permit the officers to call a physician, even at no expense to himself. As soon as he reached his room yeserday, however, he asked that Dr. Everett be sent for, which was accordingly done upon the order of the court.

Colonel Philpott Concludes.

Colonel Philpott resumed his argument at once and pointed to the financial interest that Dennis Sheedy must have in the prosecution, and how the attorneys had employed could well afford to remain in court for four week looking after this prosecution. They had two strong incentives-first the desire to win this great suit, and second the there is in it. This money would be no inconsiderable sum, and it must come either from the pockets of Dennis Sheedy or the estate of John Sheedy. He complained bitterly that Dennis Sheedy had not been brought into court for examination on behalf of the defense in compliance with the promise of the attorneys for the state. He inveighed against the assertion of Mr. Hall that the prosecution of Mrs. Sheedy could come from brotherly duty on the part of Dennis Sheedy, alleging that it was a persecution to secure the share of the estate that would otherwise fail to her.

Colonel Philpott denied that there was any evidence of Mrs. Sheedy's alleged infidelity with Walstrom and that it was damnable for the opposition to intimate it.

The speaker then recited a striking instance of where an innocent man had been executed for the murder of a man who afterwards turned up alive, and held that if there was the slightest room for reasonable doubt from the testimony, of the guilt of the accused, the defendant was to have the benefir of that doubt.

Is there no other theory upon which the murder of John Sheedy can be explained. Monday had said that he bought that cane for a stranger. "Suppose that the gamblers who had it in for Sheedy, or anybody else, had wanted to murder Sheedy, might they not have got Monday to go and get that cane, and if they had wanted someone to get that cane, who would be more likely to be selected by them than Monday McFarland, who had been about the sheedy house so much?"

He contended that anyone could have made Monday's confession from having read the newspapers, and that the parties to whom Monday had made his alleged confession had put the answers into his mouth by the questions they had asked. He harmonized the testimony of on the 9th of December and contended that the assailant was a white man. He showed how conflicting the state's testimony was as to the condition of the east window blind, which it was alleged Mrs. Sheedy had pulled up as a signal to Monday. Some of the state's own witnesses had sworn that before the shooting that curtain had been up and immediately afterwards it was down. He contended that at the time of that assault there were four persons there-John and Mrs Sheedy and two assailants, and quoted the testimony of Wilber Mayes and young Hitchcock and Curry to substantiate that theory. He took the testimony of the two boys who saw the men running south on Twelfth street and showed how utterly the state had failed to break it down in a material point. There were discrepancies on some immaterial points, but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not agree as to the facts relating to the Saviour and similar minor discrepancies might be found in the views of more fallible witnesses as to how they see a thing.

The speaker pointed to the fact that the state had found it advisable to attempt to prove by gambler allies an alibi for Williams and Gleason, and contended that the whereabouts of Williams and Gleason had by no means been accounted for. He reverted to the fears that Sheedy had entertained-not for Monday McFarland-but for those tow men. When asked by Ab Carder after the assault who had struck him he had replied "the big man." The state had shown that when Monday McFarland had struck the blow he had on Stepney's overcoat, but John Sheedy said the man had on a short coat.

He then return to a discussion of the admissability of the confessions. If the jury found from the evidence that the first confession was obtained by threats and promises it was not only incompetent itself, but every subsequent confession was in the same category.

Colonel Philpott closed his argument with a forcible explanation of his refusal to permit Monday to turn state's evidence, and said that he had in his thirty-five years of practice never have permitted his client to perjure his soul to hang that woman.

Colonel Philpott's remarks were of the most earnest, forcible character, well calculated to nourish a suspicion or doubt that might be entertained by the jurors. It was an aggressive speech and it appeared very much at time as if he contemplated picking Mr. Lambertson up gently and dropping him from the neighboring two-story window. The fervor with which he roared and hussed the name of Kim Malone was very much appreciated by that personage, whose accustomed blush was converted into a perennial grin. When he closed Colonel Philpott had talked altogether a little over two hours, and looked as if he was satisfied that he had done his duty.

Mr. Strode Begins His Argument.

At 3 o'clock Mr. Strode, with a bright pink flower in his lapel, extended his condolences to the jury for the long time they had been engaged in their responsible duties, and congratulated them upon its approaching close.

He criticised in a pathetic manner the comments made upon the deportment of the defendant. If she had cried the gentlemen of the press had said that she had broken down. If she nerved herself to bear the ordeal the counsel for the state had said she was a hardhearted woman. He had a great deal of experience in that line of the law, but he had never known of any case where any human being had ever had nearly so terrible an ordeal to bear as had this defendant. He directed his criticisms especially at Mr. Lambertson and said that should that gentleman ever have a daughter or a sister on trial he hope no man would ever find the cruelty in his heart to say such words as he had spoken of Mary Sheedy. He said that the bitterness of the prosecution had been apparent, and that had John Sheedy left no estate of value it would not have been so. He said that ever since the death of John SHeedy the press of the city had published some of the most damnable lies ever uttered to the statements made concerning her sisters, and said that even they, whom he invited the jury to observe as they sat beside her in court, had been vilely slandered in the press. No rumor had been so utterly damnable or baseless concerning Mary Sheedy and her family that it had not found ready repetition in the public press.

He recalled the fact that during his work as a prosecutor one of the first cases he had ever had in this court was against John Sheedy. John Sheedy was then the prisoner at the bar, just as Mary Sheedy is not. He did not attempt to justify murder, but when Mr. Snell and Mr. Hallstood up in court and alluded so John Sheedy as a pioneer whoes removal was a great calamity to the community, and the loss of a benefactor, and that he died there like a dog in his own home, he wanted to say that because of John Sheedy many a wife had been treated like a dog in her own home.

He criticised severely the action of Dennis Sheedy in failing to return for examination by the defense in accordance with the promise of counsel for the state. He delt with great fervor upon the failure of the state to introduce Dennis Sheedy, jr., who lived at the house and was present during the tragedy, and who was certainly an important witness, although his name was indorsed upon the back of the information and although the state had the entire wealth of the SHeedy estate behind them, while the defence had been denied even the $38 per month allowed by the state. The defense had a right to expect them both to be here, as they had been indorsed on the information. He said that Dennis Sheedy, st., had not appeared because he knew the domestic relations of John Sheedy and his wife; because John Sheedy had recently told him how happily he had been living with his wife; he had not been pit on the stand because he had settled up John Sheedy's affairs after his death, had gone and settled with the gamblers and got his money from the safe, and nobody knew how much money there was in that safe.

"Your honor," said Mr. Lambertson, rising to his feet in apparent irritation, "there is nothing of this kind in the evidence. Mr. Strode may go outside of the testimony and discuss such matters if he pleases, but I want to give him due notice, your honor, that when it comes to my turn to address this jury I will meet him on his own ground."

"Mr. Courtnay testifies, your honor, that Dennis Sheedy secured that $550 and put it in the bank to her credit," replied Mr. Strode.

"Yes; but, your honor, he did not say he got it from the gamblers."

"Mr. Stode," said the [?] "confine your remarks to the evidence."

Some further remarks between the attorneys led to a retort from Mr. Lambertson that Mr. Strode had got the $550 down in his pocket, and had no right to object to gamblers.

Mr Strode came back vigorously and told how he had been compelled to use that money in payment of the Sheedy debts, mentioning a number of debts he had paid.

"We had to pay the hired girl $20 which was owing her and which you refused to pay," said Mr. Strode passionately, fairly screaming it at Lambertson in a menacing tone and manner as he approached to which arm's length of him.

"Yes, and by that means you bribed her to keep her mouth shut when you did so."

At this juncture, while the two were glaring at each other, Judge Field interfered and said he had hoped a simple admonition was sufficient, but it seemed not, and the first one who went outside of the evidence in his argument would be fined. It was evident that the court meant what he said, and that neither subsequent transgress or should be permitted three trials, as was Mr. Carder.

Mr. Strode then proceeded to read the testimony of Mary Sheedy before the coroner's jury, wherein she told of-Dennis Sheedy having told her how, once when John was visiting away from home with Dennis had asked him why he did that and he replied that someone might have slugged or shot them.

The state had referred to the fact that Mrs. Sheedy had been married three times, and Mr. Strode, in tones of pathetic earnestness, said that while he might not go outside of the evidence, there might have been things happened to Mrs. Sheedy which justified her separation from her former husbands. He asked if the state would permit him to tell where her first husband, Horace McCool, is now.

"You may tell, if you will let us tell what we know about him," said Mr. Lambertson. The matter was referred too no further.

Mr. Strode then took up the statement of counsel for the state that Mrs. Sheedy had married John Sheedy for his money.

"Where is there any testimony, I would like to ask, that she married him for his money? I would like to have you point it out."

"It is in Monday's congression," remarked Mr. Lambertson.

"Aye, in Monday's confession, so it is," fairly shouted Mr. Strode. "And you know as well as I know that Monday McFarland's confession is not permitted as evidence against Mary Sheedy. You have been trying Mary Sheedy all through this case upon Monday McFarland's confession, when the court has already told you that it was not evidence against this defendant. It was the burden of the arguments of Mr. Hall and Mr. Snell, although they knew very well that the court will instruct the jury that that confession is not to weight against Mary Sheedy. Why didn't you go to the records to show that Mary Sheedy married John Sheedy for his money? Can you find any record that John Sheedy had any money or property nine years ago? If you can why didn't you do it. There is nothing to show how much wealth John Sheedy had when this defendant married him, or where or what it was. She may have helped her husband to accumulate this fortune now estimated at $60,000 or $70,000, and yet you say that she shall not now have a single dollar of it, if you can help it. Who can show that Mary Sheedy married Sheedy for his money?"

He said that while the state laid great stress upon the fact that they were married away from home in New Orleans, as a damaging circumstance against her, he deemed it a credit to her that, after having been dragged down by John Sheedy, she insisted upon his doing in New Orleans what he had failed to do at home-to make her his lawful wife.

He denied that there was any ground for the broad assertions by the counsel that Mrs. Sheedy had been holding clandestine meetings with Walstrom. There was no evidence of her having met him away from home by twice once when Walstrom met Mrs. Carpenter on the street and walked home with her and her sister, and the latter went over after Mrs. Sheedy, and one other time at Mrs. Carpenter's house. There were people present with them on both occasions and there was no room for a presumption that anything criminal had transpired.

In relation to the statement of Mrs. Swift that Mrs. Sheedy had told her that she would rather be the wife of a laboring man who got his pay day by day than the wife of such a man as John Sheedy, Mrs. Strode read from Mrs. Sheedy's testimony before the coroner's jury to prove that she had more probably said that she would rather be the wife John Sheedy, a laboring man than of John Sheedy, a gambler. In her testimony before the coroner she had told how strenuously she had endeavor to persuade him to quit gambling, and how he had made her believe for a long time that he was not pursuing that line of business any longer.

He then returned to a discussion of the confession. If that confession were taken away there was not a available of testimony against either of the defendants. Without that confession there was no testimony against even Monday McFarland except the identification of the cane, and he contended that the cane had never been identified. The court would instruct the jury that in any event that confession could not weigh for one moment against Mary Sheedy. That confession would not weigh even against Monday McFarland if it should appear to the jury that it was obtained by threats or promises.

He then recounted the many inducements held out to Monday to make that statement, and announced the startling conclusion that durin Thursday, Friday and Saturday preceeding the darkey's arred Jim Malone was somewhere with Monday McFarland posting him what to say. He told how Mr. Melick, when he arrested Monday, had, told him it would "evidently be better" for him if he told the whole story. He took Carder's testimony to show that Malone had scared Monday McFarland into the confession by intimating that a mob was forming outside of the jail. He quoted Officer Kinney who had testified that he had told Monday that he thought he would get out easier, if there were any more implicated with him, bu giving them up, than if he was alone. He told him he thought he would stand a better show.

He took that expression and asked what was the intent of that question, concluding that it was only necessary to look back over the proceedings of the coroner's jury to realize that they were all the time trying to get him to implicate Mary Sheedy, and said that all that night in the jail Jim Malone had been making Monday believe that if he didn't implicate the other the mob would take him.

"Now, gentlemen of the jury, do you believe that Monday McFarland struck that blow and then went on and told this story about it freely and voluntarily? Do you believe it? Candidly [?] jurors on your oath can you believe it? It would be an unnatural thing for him to do."

Mr. Strode then proceeded to show that the second confession was made while laboring under the same fear that prompted the first statement. Else why did Mayor Graham say the very first thing said to Monday, "Well, Monday, I understand that you have made up your mind to make a clean breast of it." Who had told the mayor that Monday had concluded to tell the story? Jim Malone. If it was so obtained it was not admissible as evidence.

The speaker called attention to the fact that after Monday had been talking an hour or more he still protested that it was not himself who had struck John Sheedy, and that "if it was the last word" he ever uttered he was not the mand. From this expression, Mr. Strode contended, it was evident that up to that time, under the stimulus of their threats and persuasions, he had been endeavoring to make it appear that Mary Sheedy was the guilty party.

In a similar way Mr. Strode went all through the numerous things said to Monday to induce him to tell that story, calculated to lead him to expect clemency if he did or fear disaster if he didn't, and emphasized them to express their significance. This he said he did for the benefit of Monday McFarland, as it could in no way operate against Mary Sheedy.

"I don't believe there is a juror in this box who, in the light of his oath, can honestly say that he believes that either one of these confessions of Monday McFarland was free and voluntary. I do not believe that any honest man could reach such a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt or beyond any doubt. It was contrary to human nature and the evidence does not warrant such a conclusion."

In regard to the confession before the coroner's jury he compared the testimony and claimed that Coroner Holyoke and Stenographer Wheeler were the ones best calculated to know whether or not that confession was made under oath. They had testified he was sworn. The court would instruct the jury that unless it believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Monday McFarland was not sworn, it could not consider that third confession.

The speaker devoted over forty minutes to a strong and vigorous argument against the admissibility of those confessions, at the end of which, after he had been talking an even two hours, he called the attention of the court to the fact that it was 5 o'clock, and said that as he was somewhat tired he would be pleased to have the privilege of closing this morning. He thought it would not require more than forty minutes more for him to finish.

She Wanted $10,000.

Yesterday the jury in the case of Mrs. Joanna Nichols against the Rapid Transit Street Railway company, which has occupied the attention of Judge Tibbets for two days past, brought in a verdict for the plaintiff and assessing her damages at $4,000. Mrs. Nichols some months ago was thrown from a buggy and testimony was adduced showing that she was seriously injured. She brought suit for $10,000 damages against the Rapid Transit company, claiming that the horse she was driving was frightened by a steam motor, and that the company was guilty of negligence. It is understood that the case will be appealed to the supreme court.

One of the times when you ought to be sure to love your neighbor as yourself is when you trade horses with him.

A miser keeps everything under lock and key, and even bolts his food.