Gilded Age Newspaper Articles

THE ARGUMENTS

In the Sheedy Murder Case Begun Today.

County Attorney Snell Admonishes the Jury Regarding the Confession.

JUDGE WEIR REGALES THE JURY

On Their Duty, Law and Evidence and "a Reasonable Doubt" in Effective Style.

Talking "Peers"

A little more than the usual throng congregated at the district court room this morning when the Sheedy murder case was resumed, the arguments of the counsel being the order of work.

At 9 o'clock Mrs. Sheedy and her sisters came into court and occupied their accustomed positions before the judge, Monday McFarland preceding them a few feet accompanied by his sisters and other relatives. Both the accused seemed in better spirits than any time during the trial.

The jury, after being penned up since Saturday noon appeared much relieved in being brought to the box again, where they were afforded some pleasure at least in gazing upon many a pretty face to be seen in the audience.

At 9:20 the judge directed that arguments be proceeded with and

COUNTY ATTORNEY SNELL

of the prosecution opened them by recalling to the jury the crime of January 11 last, when darkness settled over Lincoln, dwelling upon a careful description of the Sheedy premises and the prominence of the owner. Referring to the rumors then prevalent he stated that suspicion began gradually to point its finger at Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy as the perpetrators of the deed. "We believe," said the speaker, "the evidence in this case early in the proceedings was sufficient to satisfy your minds that they are the guilty parties." He then referred to the confession and the testimony of Minnie Coil, who often saw McFarland standing at Thirteenth and P streets, waiting for Mrs. Sheedy, and maintained that he was waiting there with murder in his heart.

Comparing the testimony with the confession of McFarland, Mr. Snell said: "Take the evidence of Mr. Chinn, another colored man. Does he not say McFarland was at his place on the day of the assault up to about 5 o'clock; then he excused himself saying he had an engagement. After ten o'clock that night he came to Chinn's place again and taid until after midnight and then they together went to lunch and McFarland when limping away said he had lost his cane. Does his confession not say that he fell immediately after striking the fatal blow and does it not say also that he dropped his cane?

"In all cases of murder there is some thing of an inducement. This is no exception. Monday McFarland was induced to commit this deed by the co-respondent in this case - Mrs. Sheedy. When the learned counsel on the other side opened their remarks at the beginning of this case Mrs. Sheedy was referred to as the 'sad-faced defendant.' Far better had he said the nervy little woman who planned one of the most heinous crimes in the history of Lincoln!

"Not one scintilla of evidence has been brought forth by the defense to show where Monday McFarland was on Sunday night, Jan. 11. Nor have they produced anything going to show Mrs. Sheedy is not a conspirator. The fact that neither of these defendants have been placed upon the stand to give testimony speaks volumes. And what has been the burden of the evidence given by the defense? Simply that Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy had lived happily together. But what does the testimony of the state show? Does not Mrs. Swift know how happily they got along? Did not Johnnie Klausner tell you he had seen Mrs. Sheedy weeping, and did she not tell him she was going to get a divorce? Has it not been stated also that Sheedy threatened her, that she had her trunk packed once, that once she stated that she had 'rather live with a laboring man who made his money day by day than with such a man as Sheedy.' All this trouble has arisen, gentlemen of the jury, since Mrs. Sheedy's return from Buffalo."

Mr. Snell then reviewed all the evidence pertaining to the escapades of A. H. Walstrom and Mrs. Sheedy and the object of it all, the purchase of hose, shirts, neckties, etc., for Walstrom, and the sending of chicken, porter, etc., to his room, ending by saying it all shows that Mrs. Sheedy was guilty of illicit relation with Walstrom - transferred her affections from Sheedy to Harry Walstrom.

The attorney then considered the confession at length, characterizing it as gospel truth in ever sense and a document not from the brain of some weird novelist, holding it to be too true in its every detail, and that no novelist of today, no man in all Lincoln, was able to write the history of a crime with more accuracy and in keeping with all evidence adduced. "How would Monday McFarland know all thise." asked the speaker, "if this woman be innocent and know nothing of the arrangements of this murder?"

Mr. Snell recalled the life of John Sheedy and held that Mrs. Sheedy knew that he was a gambler when she married him and married him because he was a gambler, able to support her idleness.

Mr. Snell maintained that the object of the murder was the freedom of Mrs. Sheedy from her husband, that she might be with Walstrom, whom she loved to distraction, reviewing in support the evidence relative to her statements about her "sweetheart" to several of the witnesses.

As to her relation with Monday McFarland, Mr. Snell said it was nothing strange that she should be guilty of adultery with a darkey, since she had murder in her heart; with such motive uppermost she would halt at nothing. He again touched upon her career prior to her marriage with Sheedy.

After giving some attention to the evidence given by the defense, particularly to the cane and the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hosman relative to the first assault, and the testimony of the two boys Mr. Snell closed his argument, pleading with the jury to remember and weigh well the confession of McFarland.

As to whether poison or the blow produced death was also considered, the speaker referring to expert testimony. "Four of these," he said, "tell you John Sheedy's death was caused by poison. They found no clots of blood on the brain, as in compression, and hence they believe poison was used. The defense didn't seem inclined to put doctors on the stand to attest that the blow caused death. In all probability the testimony of all physicians would be the same. Whether or not, however, it was found that the blow or poison produce death, both of these defendants go hand in hand and stand guilty - one, as an accessory, the other as a principal. Do you believe that any man would go there, stand there and lay in wait to assassinate John Sheedy, on one of the best traveled streets in town unless someone was there to tell him when to strike - unless he had an accessory on the inside?"

During the speech of Mr. Snell it was noticed Mrs. Sheedy used her 'kerchief considerably, as well as her sisters, but McFarland sat stolid and immovable.

Judge Weir,

of the defense, fellowed Mr. Snell, beginning in that easy, careful, smooth way which is betokened by his general bearing. After making a few preliminary remarks the speaker said:

"We have under consideration the lives of two human beings, and these lives must be disposed of by the consideration of the jury. It is one of the greatest responsibilities ever conferred upon this body of ment and it gave me pleasure ro read in your face during the trial that you fully realized the responsibility."

He then drifted into the reason of coming here, and of true work of the officers of the law, complimenting the prosecution for the work done, pausing long enough to define the line between persecution and prosecution.

The first thing to which he called the attention of the jury was: the law, the facts. The jury, he said, were the exclusive judges of the facts; the judge, the exclusive judge of the law, and when it comes to final considerations they should be guided by the definitions given them by the judge of the law. Thus the judge instructs that the defendants are presumed to be entirely innocent until PROVEN guilty and the attention of the jury should not be diverted from this. "It is often," he continued, "that our zeal as lawyers, our zeal to gain victory, cause us to overstep the bounds and cause misleading statements. Let this be watched, gentlemen of the jury, and when such things are done banish it from your mind. When you enter into the jury room let it be uppermost in your minds that it was and is the duty of the prosecution to sweep away from your mind by evidence, all lurking suspicions, every vestige of that presumption of the innocence of these two defendants. The law requires you to use that reasonable doubt in the interest of the accused. Some of this testimony looks one way and some of it the other, but when you cannot under such circumstances decide, then the law requires the reasonable doubt to be exercised in the interest of the accused. It is divine law that ninety and nine guilty ones should escape rather than one innocent be punished."

At 2 o'clock Judge Weir, picking up the thread of discourse where two hours before he dropped it, said, in substance, that to all crimes there is a motive and the prosecutions in this case ingeniously sets forth as the motive for this that John Sheedy and his wife lived in great discord and she wanted to get a divorce, that while in Buffalo she met and fell in love with one A. H. Waslstrom, and this led her to imbue her hands in the blood of the king. This is the motive the prosecution offers. "And," continued he, "with all the able counsel, with all the efforts of experienced detectives the prosecution has failed utterly to bring out any substantial evidence - only the most remote circumstantial evidence. It is important we should know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. It is a great principle in law that if the great chain of circumstantial evidence any chain is lacking the entire is of no effect; it must be one and continuous - every link in its proper place.

"John Sheedy was in common language a gambler. A peer to any in his profession in this city. His successes appalled them and caused a jealousy to wrankle in their bosom. He was struck at his own door, and is it not quite as probable that someone other than his own loving wife was the cause of the fatal blow? Was it not Mr. Courtney who testified that only a few days prior to the assault that Sheedy received a letter which threatened his life unless he stopped 'running the town.'

"Suspicion shortly after the crime fell upon Monday McFarland and his arrest followed. Then it was an opportunity was offered the combination of detectives and officers to make money.

"You will remember he was arrested on Saturday evening, and if Marshal Melick is to be believed, offers of immunity were immediately made him. He told him if others were implicated by disclosing it he would get off easier. He was put in a cell, but I will not stop to detail the shameful conduct there. Jom Malone was there. He is the man who is looked to when evidence is wanted. He is a man of experience, it seems. And he is a man schooled in iniquity. He made this poor man believe there was a mob waiting for him. He plied him with this statement until the poor man was well nigh crazed, and under this great stress of mind this confession was made. This poor colored man appealed to Capt. Carder to save him from this mob. There he was; pressed on all sides; scared to death, and the question then arose how am I to save myself? and under this condition told this doleful tale. And then on Sunday, about 11 o'clock, the mayor and officer aut him under this crucial test again."

The judge was still addressing the jury at 3:15, when The Call forms closed.

DAVID BUTLER. A Rumor that He is Among the Dead.

It is stated this afternoon that ex governor Butler died suddenly at his home near Pawnee City yesterday. A telegram from this office to Pawnee City to verify the statement has not brought a response up the time of going to press.

EXCELLENT PROSPECTS.

And Farmers are Hopeful and Rustling.

Mr. J. W. Johnson of the railway commission was in the western part of the state last week and was at Curtis for several days. In speaking to The Call of crop conditions and the country in general Mr. Johnson said:

"Curtiss is in Frontier county. That's one of the big counties out there. It's 24x42 miles in extent, and while there is some rough land there are thousands of acres of beautiful, unbroken prairie of rich soil waiting for somebody to plow it up and turn it into a cornfield. You can't see the beauty of that county from the railroad. Railroads follow the streams and plunge through the draws and canyons, and if you view the county from a car window you'll deny the theory that god created all the earth and insist that the devil got in his work in Frontier county. But go out on the uplands and see the fine prairie and the wheat fields and you'll want to strangle the pessimist who preaches that western Nebraska is not an agricultural country.

How did they get the seed wheat? They got it every way. Some of 'em saved it from last year's crop, some of 'em got it from the state relief committee and nearly every one of 'em had a friend in Iowa or Illinois who helped 'em out, and they got it by hook or crook, but they got it, and they put it in, and its a fine sight to see it now. They're having good rains all over the western portion of the state. Day before yesterday it rained seventeen hours continuously, a regular old fashioned quiet rain. They listed their corn mostly this year. That's the lazy man's way of planting corn so they say, but I believe its all right in the light soil. Of course there's lazy men out there as there always are on the frontier.

An industrious man goes west to build up a home and grow up with the country, but a lazy man seeks the frontier to get away from society, where he can live without changing his shirt.

In Frontier county the farmers are all busy in their fields, and every man feels the inspiration of a new promise and a new hope. The railroads havn't cars enough to ship the grain that will be raised in this state this year if the present crop promise is fulfilled."

A little 4-year-old of an enquiring turn of mind wandered out of Miller & Paines this morning about 10 o'clock while her mama was busily engaged shopping. After an absence of half an hour the little one was found, having been sight seeing on her own account, and restored to the frantic mother.

TWELFTH YEAR. LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, WEDNESDAY EVENING MAY

This Causes a Stop in the Arguments

In the Sheedy Case - Hall Compares the Confession and Evidence.

STEARNS SCORES EXPERT TESTIMONY.

Col. Philpot Opens with Venom Upon Malone and Makes the Doctors Dance.

Abruptly Stopped.

An unexpected turn was taken in the Sheedy murder case this morning, it becoming apparent that James Johnson, one of the jurors was sick with fever. This was after the close of Mr. Stearns' speech and at about the point when Col. J. E. Philpott was warmed up in his roast of the doctors, so adjournment was taken that Mr. Johnson might receive medical attention.

Following is the continuation of MR> HALL'S SPEECH YESTERDAY.

"It seems to me that the least Mrs. Sheedy could do is to do all that she can to convict Monday McFarland. But on the other hand, they are all endeavoring to free him. How much better would it have been for them to show the confession to be untrue?

"Monday McFarland in his confession tells you he went to the house after this tragedy. The servant girl testifies he was there four or five times.

"His confession says Mrs. Sheedy showed him Walstrom's picture in the album. This is corroborated by the statement of the servant who says his photo was in the album. Now what was Mrs. Sheedy doing with Monday McFarland in the parlor? Is it not repulsive to think a respectable white woman would have him there showing him her album.

"His confession says he got the cane at Goldwater's. Nobody contradicts. He says he paid 90 cents for the cane. Goldwater testifies Monday paid him 90 cents.

"Now gentlemen, these are circumstances and if there is one thing more than another to convince me that this was a conspiracy of Mrs. Sheedy and McFarland, it is the confession of McFarland in saying he went to see Mrs. Sheedy on Sunday night and she came out to pump a pitcher of water at 7 o'clock. How could Monday McFarland have guessed this? Did he have an inspiration from on high telling him when Mrs. Sheedy went out after water?

"She tells you all the curtains in the house, save the parlor, were down. Now this confession says she raised the sitting room curtain. This is corroborated by witness Tindall who says all were down but one. Now this was run up just as McFarland said it was - to show him when John Sheedy was coming. Do you think you would stand on that porch with all the lights about you while waiting for you victim? Somebody would have seen Monday McFarland standing there. Gentlemen of this jury, I am convinced that there was concert of action; Monday McFarland without, Mary Sheedy within. How did he know John Sheedy was coming out at all? It was at a time when all nature was at peace. While the servant girl was away from home. After young Dennis Sheedy, who had been staying at the house, was away. Gentlemen, it is plain.

"Mrs. Sheedy tells you that when Sheedy started to leave the house, she started for the kitchen to take some medicine - right by the window which was to be the signal that McFarland's victim was coming. Circumstances can't lie.

McFarland tells in his confession that he had on his cousin Stepney's overcoat. What does Stepney and Mattie Neal tell you? His confession tells you that after he had taken his wife home on that fateful night he went to Chinn's place. What does Chinn's testimony say? "Monday McFarland tells you he did the shooting on December 9. WHy should he tell this if it is not true? What do Hosman and his wife, witnesses for the defense say? He tells you he was hid on the west side of the gate, fell in running away, etc. What do Hosman and his wife say? Exactly the same thing - only that they believed he was white. How in the name of high heaven could Monday McFarland have guessed all these situations, just as given by witnesses, if he was not there.

"Monday McFarland tells you that Mrs. Sheedy called him into her house on the Sunday of the shooting as he was coming from Mrs. White's home, where he had cut her boy's hair. What does Mrs. White tell you? She tells you he was at her house on that Sunday morning to cut her boy's hair.

Monday McFarland told the officers Mary Sheedy had given him a lock of her hair, and where they would find it. They got it. Has she ever made an effort to deny that the hair was a lock of hers. Why, in the name of God doesn't refute all this if it be false.

"Mrs. Sheedy told McFarland Walstrom was coming from Buffalo. Who in all the world could have told Monday McFarland so accurately if this confession be false.

"Monday McFarland tells you Mrs. Sheedy told him she was in a delicate condition. MRs. Swift testifies that Mrs. Sheedy told her she was in that condition. How, in the name of God, would Monday McFarland know all this?

"The learned advocate who addressed this jury yesterday alleged this prosecution was made from a venal standpoint and called on Sheedy's immortal spirit to cause his brother to desist. I would to God you could know the story John Sheedy's spirit could tell. He could tell you a story never told on this stand. From my understanding it is commendable for Dennis Sheedy, his brother, to spend his money to ferret out the perpetrator of his brother's murder.

"And, gentlemen, you don't want to lose sight of the fact that all this trouble originated with the coming of A. H. Walstrom. He was the disturbing element.

"If John Sheedy died from the effects of the blow she is guilty; if he died from the effects of poison, she is still guilty, and Monday McFarland, too, for he administered the blow to that end."

After addressing the jury on the matter of its duty, and reading a few medical authorities on morphine poisoning Mr. Hall closed his argument.

R. D. STEARNS.

The speaker began his argument by paying a happy tribute to woman, there being scores and scores in the audience, and said he felt they were there to lend that womanly sympathy that Bulwer spoke of.

Then addressing the jury he referred to the opposing counsel and told of the heinousness of murder in any form, erstwhile asking why all the array of eminent legal and detective talent if it were not funds from private pockets. "Why," the speaker said, "even Dr. Child was winding around all over this section like a serpent hunting evidence.

" 'Oh,' they say, 'Dennis Sheedy is not here dangling witnesses.' No, gentlemen, Dennis Sheedy is not here, but his money is. Monday represents talent.

"Why, gentlemen, this poor, grief stricken widow can do nothing that pleases the eminent gentlemen on the other side. Id she does not weep, they say she is heartless; if she weeps, they say it is crocodile tears.

Passing on to the methods of prosecution and in support of the charge that money was what the opposing counsel was working for, asked why it was the legally elected prosecuting attorney was so overshadowed by his co-workers. COntinuing Mr. Stearns scored Dennis Sheedy for the alleged transfer of realty in which the widow shared, and for the taking away of John Sheedy's gold watch and clothes.

Touching the comparisons made by Mr. Hall between the evidence and the confession, Mr. Stearns said the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hertz knocked the statement that Mrs. Sheedy was out of the house after water just prior to the shooting.

As to the whereabouts of McFarland on that night the speaker said the prosecution's own witness, Chinn, testified that Monday was at his place from 5 o'clock to alter midnight on that night.

Attention was then given the cane, Mr. Stearns telling of Malone's deal with Goldwater's boy, offering $200 to him as a reward, and asking why the prosecution did not put Malone on the stand to deny. He also analyzed the character of the Goldwaters. saying they were the direct descendants of the money-lenders of the Bible times, ending by informing the jury that the Goldwater boy, only fourteen years old, had said he had been in court at least two dozen times.

"The gentle and genial manipulations of Jim Malone, the mean and damnable manipulations of this man" were also polished to a great degree.

"I dare say, gentlemen," said Mr. Strode. "that not one has offered testimony in this case that furnishes one scintilla of evidence connecting these accused parties with this crime."

"Now, how have they identified the ring? Now there was Johnnie Kluusner, the servant girl, Dennis Sheedy and friends of the family - why did they not, bring them on the stand to identify this gold ring. Instead it is alleged the negro told Melick it was at the pawnbroker's; Melick went there, but didn't have a tocket, yet he got it, irrespective of number or anything else. Why did Waldman give up that ring without a pawn ticket. Simply for the same reason that Goldwater testified to the cane, there was money in it. It paid him to stand in with the police."

The speaker then turned his attention to the matter of how Monday McFarland could have known the circumstances spoken about in that confession, citing that he has known Sheedy for years and was familiar with every circumstance of the family.

As to the cane found at the Sheedy house he held that it had never been shown that that cane was actually left there by McFarland, nor whether it had not been left there in the interval between the first and second search of the promises by the officers. As to the condition of the window blinds Mr. Stearns rebutted the testimony of Chas. Tindall with that of Dr. Ruth M. Wood, who testified that all the shades were up until about one minute after the shooting, when windows were darkened by blinds.

In relation to the confession itself, he said there were some things that went to make up character and humanity that man could not swear away and when the statement was made of criminal intimacy between the defendants it was so revolting and unnatural to stamp it a lie in toto.

"What is the motive the prosecution offered to you for this crime, gentlemen. Now in this confession McFarland said Sheedy was his best friend on earth, and Hall says McFarland was overwhelmingly, distractedly in love with Mrs. Sheedy - worshipped the ground she walked on, she captured him and goes to him and tells him she's got a lover and wants Sheedy put out of the way. She hoo-doos him and makes him submissive to her every whim and though he loves her so devotedly he makes way for another take his place? Now that's one of the state's motives! That's one of the theories the state offers as why the blow was struck, depriving John Sheedy of his life. Did you ever of such a preposterous statement?" said Mr. Stearns. "Then on the part of Mrs. Sheedy, they say she had a motive. They tell you she loved Walstrom and wanted Sheedy put out of the way. Wanted to murder him. Why murder, gentlemen? Could she not have obtained a divorce? Is it not a fact that all gamblers are great sports and in following this was there not sufficient grounds?"

In opening his argument again this morning Mr. Stearns dwelt at some length upon circumstantial evidence, recalling innumerable cases where such evidence has sent innocent parties to the gallows and events transpiring after had proved it conclusively.

He passed then to the question of poisoning, scoffing the expert testimony and plainly insinuating that money had changed their minds since the coroner's jury. He said that Dr. Winnet had been trained by "the learned Mr. Lambertson," as well as others who look to stand to give expert testimony.

Then pleading in a sympathetic way for half an hour for his client, Mrs. Sheedy, in which many truly pretty pictures were drawn for the jury to gaze upon, he closed.

COL. J. E. PHILPOT followed Mr. Stearns, prefacing his arguments with the biography of his client, Monday McFarland, or sought to, but County Attorney Snell called a halt, holding that it was not permissible and that the colonel would have to stick to the evidence.

Mr. Philpot appealed to the court, erstwhile telling Mr. Snell that it was not the first case of this kind that he had been in and he knew that was proper, even if Mr. Snell did not.

The judge sustained the objection and Mr. Philpot desisted from this particular part of his speech, giving his attention to the confession of McFarland, saying, as he held the document aloft that it was the result of the miscegenation of a Caucassian and an African - Jom Malone and Monday McFarland, an illiterate negro. Then going over the confession he cited where McFarland had been persuaded to talk under promises. "This shows you," said he, "the miscegenation of this caucasian and my colored friend."

He then showed where on Sunday morning "the Caucasian" (Malone_ had called on McFarland and said he "understood" he wanted to make a confession and the negro replied, "yes, he was afraid to talk" the night previous and "it would lessen the severity of the consequences." This last sentence struck Col. Philpott as elegant language for his African friend and gave him conclusive proof of the miscegenation, at the Caucasian's solicitations and threats.

He furnished quite a monologue in going over the confession, picking out choice selections bearing the "earmark of the "Caucassian," and occasionally finding an empathic denial from McFarland lurking in the pages he would give fights of oratory that echoed through the room and fell with a dull thud upon Malone and the prosecution.

"It was not to relieve the mind, not to ease the conscience," Mr. Philpott said, "that McFarland told all this. It was because, as his confession says, the fiend incarnate told him 'it would be better' for him; he was, as the confession says, persuaded. And now look! After this fiend incarnate, this Malone, had persuaded him to tell all this he turns and says: 'Now you feel a damn sight better than you did last night, don't you.' Do you hold this to be competent evidence? Do you say this is admissible?"

He paid but little more attention to this phase of the confession and then passed on the subject of methods of getting confessions, incidentally saying the leech upon our modern society was what is known as detectives and said there was far more truth than first thought would suggest in the old saying that "it takes a thief to catch a thief" for some of them in search of reward had not lost their cunning. he also roasted the "sweat-box" methods resorted to by the thugs of the profession of detectives and then turned his fire upon the expert testimony given, complementing "Dr. Lambertson'' in his excellent work in posting his witness on important questions while they were on the stand, Drs. Casebeet, Winnett and Beckley particularly. He took them one by one and scored them without reserve. Dr. C. S. Hart came in for no little share of it, the colonel saying the doctor in answer to one of his questions, said he was at Sheedy's house a few hours prior to the death of his patient, for a "private reading" because charges had been made against him and he wanted to satisfy himself. After speculating on this for a moment or two Mr. Philpot ejaculated. "Who knows: it may have been through malpractice. I do not say it was; but it might have been through malpractice that John Sheedy died. Dr. Hart did not swear he was positive death was caused by morphine poisoning. Ah no! He thought it might have resulted from this, but rather favored the blow as the cause. He knew he would be only one of all others looked upon with a degree of suspicion. He was the attending physician. He even went home to get his instruments to administer morphine, and was impatient to administer. I do not say it was; but it might have been through malpractice."

Col. Philpot then took up the money phase of the case, saying in substance that there were $34,000 to be fished for by the able counsel of the prosecution - save county attorney snell, who alone was to receive only his regular pay and that his work in the case clearly showed he was doing all that he could be expected to do under the circumstances. However, the speaker averred he was not here to charge that Dennis Sheedy was after the estate.

At this point one of the juror, Johnson, who has been bordering on illness the past day or two, was becoming borne down by fever and the argument was cut off and adjournment taken to 2 o'clock.

At 2 o'clock Johnson was feeling some better thought he could stand a continuation of eloquence, and the speech resumed.

TO THE FRONT.

The Revenue Cutter, Bear, Ordered to Alaska.

It Looks Like Active Work On the Part of This Government.

CONDITIONS OF CROPS IN DAKOTA.

Work of the General Assembly of Presbyterians at Detroit, Michigan.

Aggressive Action.

Washington, May 27, -orders for the revenue cutter Bear to sail for Alaska were sent by telegraph this afternoon. While it is impossible to obtain positive information as to the character of the instructions to the revenue officers it is generally understood that they do not differ in any essential particular from those of last year.

A Reverend Counterfeiter.

Duquoin, Ill., May 27. -United States Marshal Bacon of Springfield, arrested Rev. Geo. W. Vancil here last night, on the charge of making counterfeit money. This is a sequel to the arrest of Rev. J. Holmes last Saturday. Holmes is supposed to be the leader of a gang of counterfeiters of which he is a member. More are to be arrested. Vancil was taken to Springfield this morning. He has lived near here for over twenty years and his arrest caused much surprise, as about $100 of spurious coin and utensils for manufacturing it were secured.

Indicting the Whole Crew. Los Angeles, Cal., May 27. -The United States grand jury returned indictments against Burt, Supreago and Captain O'Farrell, of the schooner Robert and Minnie. Burt gave $10,000 bail and was released, but the captain has not yet given bonds. Five sailors on the schoonen and two Chilian deserters will be detained as witnesses. Other Indictments were issued but the names are kept secret as the parties have not yet been arrested.

The Presbyterians.

Detroit, May 27. -After devotional services at the Presbyterian general assembly on religious exhibits at the world's fair.

Dr. Niccols read a report from the committee on increase of the ministry with particular reference to the reception of ministers from other denominations.

Referred to the committee on church policy.

The standing committee on foreign missions reported. Report notes the resignation of J. C. Lowrie, D. D., senior secretary and the appointment of David Gregg, D.D , to be a member of the board. Also of the field secretary, Rev. Thomas Marshall.

The treasurer's report for the year ending April 30, shows expenditures of $973,000, which with the shortage from last year, leaves a deficit of $90,000; an unusually large number of candidates applied for foreign work last year and seventy-three were found qualified and sent out; aggregate addition to mission churches is 2,875, an increase in pulpit and in schools is shown, as is also the growth in favor of medical missions. Work was hindered greatly by the war between Guatemala and San Salvador and by the present strike in Chili, but encouraging reports were received from elsewhere. After reference and overtures to the proper committees the recommendations of the committee on report of the foreign board was adopted.

Mr. L. Decius of York, Neb., has purchased the stock of goods lately owned by C. Bailey at 1951 O street.

Crops in the Dakotas.

Huron, S. D., May 27. -The crop bulletin for the week ending May 23, covering the counties of both Dakotas, is quite encouraging. Only a few counties report rain greatly needed, and none say crops are suffering for it. Wheat, barley and oats are making rapid progress, but it's too cool for corn. Wheat is up to two or three inches, flax is in good condition and potatoes said to be doing well.

Guaranteed Cure for La Grippe.

We authorize our advertised druggist to sell you Dr. King's new Discovery for Consumption, coughs and Colds, upon this condition. If you are afflicted with La Grippe and will use this remedy according to directions, giving it a fair trial, and experience no benefit, you may return the bottle and have your money refunded. We make this offer, because of the wonderful success of Dr. King's New Discovery during last season's epidemic. Have heard of no case in which it failed. Try it. Trial bottle free at J. H. Harley's drug store.

Large size 50c and $1.00.

A GREAT CROWD

Listens to Attorney Strode's Powerful Speech.

The Eloquent Lawyer Wakes up the Prosecuting Attorneys to Retorts.

A LIVELY DAY IN THE SHEEDY CASE.

Mr. Strode Closes for the Defense and MR. Lambertson Speaks for the State.

Today has been an eventful on in the Sheedy murder case - not so much on account of any startling things brought out in the arguments, but by reason of a few disgraceful scenes in which the attorneys figured through personal references.

The larges crowd of people that ever assembled in the district court room of this county was that of today, when even standing room was at a premium.

The closing of Mr. Strode's arguments were at time touching and withal it was an affecting appeal to the jury in behalf of Mrs. Sheedy.

The following is a synopsis of the closing of the speech of J. E. PHILPOTT. YESTERDAY.

In the afternoon Mr. Philpot took up the testimony of the Hitchcock and Curry boys and defended them by saying they told a straightforward story as to seeing two men going down Twelfth street on the night of the assault - though admitted that the Curry boy, his first time in any court, was a little excited under the fire of Frank Hall. "Why," says the attorney, "Paul, Luke and John do not tell precisely the same story of the Savious? Why expect these boys?"

He then considered the matter of the identity of John Sheedy's assailant, referring to Sheedy's apprehensions that his life was endangered by two gamblers and his statement to A. W. Carder after the blow had been given, that "the bigger one of the two" had struck him and "he wore a short coat." He then asked how the state could explain better than Sheedy who it was that struck him - holding that it was Monday McFarland and he wore an overcoat on that night. Furthermore, he asked why the prosecution had been driven to the extreme of proving an alibi for Gleason and Williams if they had "a clear case" on Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy. Following this up he maintained that even in this the defense had failed to establish clearly the whereabouts of Gleason and Williams on that night.

Then he passes on to the matter of the skull as it had been exhibited to the jury and personal remarks of the opposing counsel during the trial, making it at times humorous and sublime.

Hos closing remarks were addressed feelingly to the jury in the way of a speculation, believing not one among them could find it in his heart to bring in a verdict of conviction.

J. B. Strode then took his position before the jury and in quiet tones addressed that body, regretting that they had been detained so long from their usual avocations, but feeling that when their deliberations are ended his client and that of his friends will go forth as free as a child.

Mr. Strode is an old friend of his client - in fact she was a school-girl under his tutorship in Illinois and [herce?] it was with no struggle that he called up feeling apostrophes in her praise and her virtues.

Addressing Mr. Lambertson he said he regretted that he could so far forget himself to use language that he did toward his client throughout this trial and hoped that if his wife, or his mother or his sister were brought within the pale of any court that they should escape the assailments he had heaped upon Mrs. Sheedy.

"I tell you, gentlemen," he said to the jury, "if it had been that John Sheedy died a poor man you would not have seen these gentlemen working in this prosecution."

He then took occasion to score the newspapers unmercifully for statements that they published and even went so far as to say that it had been printed in papers that African blood coursed in her veins.

After mildly roasting the police he took up Mr. Snell's opening argument, to answer that particularly. He held that the defense endeavored to picture the death of Sheedy as a great loss to the community and then related that when he came to this city some nine years ago the first man whom he was called upon to prosecute was John Sheedy, the gambler.

"He then occupied the same position before this court that his wife and Monday McFarland occupy now," said he.

Then he dwelt upon the testimony of Mrs. Coil and maintained that ere she left the stand she admitted that she was an enemy of McFarland, rebutting it with the evidence of whedon, Carpenter and Officer Botts.

The failure of Dennis Sheedy to come when telegraphed for, furnished Mr. Strode an admirable opportunity to answer the question of the defense, why they did not put certain parties on the stand.

He called attention to the fact that the state although endorsing his name upon its information failed absolutely to have him here, simply because he was the most important witness that the defense could obtain, for it was he who saw every drop of medicine given and knew how happily John Sheedy and his wife lived, had Mrs. Sheedy's fullest confidence and settled John Sheedy's bisoness - "who, moreover," he said, "settled John Sheedy's affairs with the gamblers, took $550 and gave it to Mrs. Sheedy but God only knows how much money was in that safe at Gus Sanders."

A PROFESSIONAL BOUT.

At this point Mr. Lambertson objected and asked that a ruling of the court be had compelling Mr. Strode to stick to the evidence, giving due notice that he would resort to the same methods. During the discussion both lawyers became wroth, each accusing each each other of irregularities. It was only by the stern voice of Judge Field that they were stopped, giving each notice that fines would be imposed unless each based his arguments upon the evidence.

Mr. Strode then continued, showing the testimony of Dennis Sheedy at the coroner's jury and saying that the defense knew he would have to corroborate that testimony at this trial and hence purposely for this and other reasons kept him out of the way.

He then proceeded to show how Sheedy incurred the enmity of the other gamblers in town by endeavoring to monopolize the entire gambling business of the city, and in support referred to the threatening letter he received only a few days prior to his death and which he had given to D. G. Courtnay.

His respects were then paid to Mr. Snell for his assertion that Mrs. Sheedy was unduly intimate with A. H. Walstrom, and said there was not on scintilla of evidence to show that Mrs. Sheedy was ever guilty of anything of the kind.

He said by the testimony of Dr. Ruth M. Wood the window curtain as a signal was knocked out of the case.

Passing on to the matter of Mrs. Sheedy's past life Mr. Strode drew a beautiful word picture, saying that he could not go outside the evidence - but there may have been something in her earlier days that made her what she was when she married John Sheedy. He also spoke of knowing Horace McCool, her first husband, and turning to Mr. Hall, said: "You know him, Mr. Hall; you have been to see him; you know where he is and you tried to get him to testify here- but what did he say to you?"

Mr. Hall: "We said nothing about McCool."

Mr. Lambertson: "Go on and tell us all you know about McCool, Mr. Strode, if you will allow us the same privileges."

The cane was taken up and the variety of testimony given, but principally the testimony of Mendall and Hyman Goldwater who, he arrived, were testifying for a price - identifying that cane because he "drove a tack in the centre of the head of it," when there was never a tack in the centre of its head, not even a tack hole.

In explanation of how Monday McFarland could have known of all the circumstances his confession relates he said that no man was more familiar with all of John Sheedy's surroundings and everyday life and what he did not hear from him he could have read.

"Now, gentlemen, take Monday McFarland's confessing out of this case and you haven't got a criminating circumstance against Monday McFarland - and you have not on iota of evidence against Mrs. Sheedy, for this confession as the court has already instructed you, does not apply to Mary Sheedy. Gentlemen, it behooves you to look around to see what you have to convict upon ere we talk of convicting these parties," said he. "Why, taking out the confession you have nothing left but the cane - and, gentlemen, I maintain that cane has never been identified by the Goldwaters or anyone else. Then, gentlemen, what have you got?

He then touched upon the methods of getting the confession using virtually the argument of messrs. Woodward, Philpot and Stearns to show that it was not voluntary, but incidentally remarking, "where would Jim Malone have been had it not been that he had gotten the Goldwater boy to identify the cane the day before?" He cited the testimony of Messrs. Carder and Plain and Melick to show that hope of favor and fears of mobs were used to extort it and admonished the jury that they would be told by the court they would have to say upon oath that they believed the confession was not extorted by either of these if they could take it into consideration. Further on the speaker alleged that it was clear to his mind this confession was concocted for the purpose of Implicating Mrs. Sheedy, Jom Malone being charge with the scheme. As to the admissibility of the second confession Mr. Strode told the jury it would be necessary to show that all these incidents that would defeat its first admission had passed away and the prisoner made it voluntarily. he then proceeded to show how persuasions was again used, even after McFarland had stontly denied killing Sheedy, thus giving the lie to his first statements. Then he quoted the statement made by Dennis Sheedy at the time of the second confession in the presence of Mayor Graham, Malone and Melick, that he "was satisfied who killed his brother and now to make a clean breast of it - turn state's evidence and possibly escape with ten or fifteen years in the penitentiary. "This," said Mr. Strode, "is what Dennis Sheedy held out to him. And for what purpose?" Passing on he took that portion relative to the statements about buying whisky at a drug store on east O street, and asked why these prosecutors had not brought that druggist to the stand to corroborate that.

At that point he asked that he might rest his arguments until today and inasmuch as Juror Johnson's physician had recommended that he be not kept in the box long, the court granted it and ordered the jury removed.

THIS MORNING.

Mr. Strode began his discourse by referring to the remarks of Mr. Hall, who would invoke the spirit of John Sheedy and correcting his quotation as to the death of King Claudius.

He then took up the confession again, refuting the charge that McFarland would not have made that confession had it not been true, reciting a number of cases in which such confessions had been made, that afterwards proved to be entirely untrue.

Touching upon the matter of detectives and referring to the fact that Pinkerton men were brought from Chicago here he referred to Mr. Hall as a member of the firm of Marquett, Deweese & Hall, attorneys of the Burlington railroad which often calls out Pinkerton men.

Mr. Hall, taking it as an appeal to such members of the jury as might be alliance men. Arose and said in bitterness, "I denounce, Mr. Strode, that speech as an unprofessional and uncalled for one." The court called them to time and Mr. Strode continued.

He then referred to Mary Sheedy as the flaxen-haired little school girl he knew as a school teacher; could see her little sisters and an aged mother on a sickbed awaiting with breathless anxiety the word from this jury that would set her youngest daughter free, the speech bringing tears not alone to the eyes of many auditors but a flood of them from Mrs. Sheedy and her faithful sisters.

Messrs. Lambertson and Hall were given some attention, the speaker holding that these able gentlemen did not offer their valuable services to the prosecution out of any desire to see broken laws vindicated, but in the regular line of making money. He said so able and talented gentlemen in opposition was enough to crush the less able and steal all hope and ambition from them.

A fair tribute was paid to County Attorney Snell, but the speaker regretted that he had been superseded by Messrs. Lambertson and Hall. In closing he admonished the jurors not to be led away from their honest convictions by the sophistry.

"Who is it, gentlemen," he continued, "that desires, outside these prosecutors, who are planning and plotting for the blood of Mrs. Sheedy, my client? I think I know the sentiment of this community and I do not believe there are any who desire her conviction. When you go to your homes, gentlemen, ask your neighbors if they desired the blood of Mrs. Sheedy to atonefor this crime. All that These gentlemen want is the estate of Mary Sheedy. Gentlemen, there is not compromise in thise case. If she be guilty at all it must be in the first degree - the punishment for which is death. You cannot evade that - she must either be found guilty of murder in the first degree or not at all. Think of this, I charge you gentlemen."

Referring to the charge of poison Mr. Strode told the jury that if it was administered it must have been while John Sheedy was on the sick bed, and the only person who was present when every does of medicine was given was endorsed on the information by the prosecution, but had not been brought into court - a significant fact that spoke volumes. Relying upon the intentions of the state the defense who expected and hoped to use Dennis Sheedy, jr., were deceived - he was spirited away, kept out of the reach of the defense, Mr. Strode said. He then recalled how gracefully Mr. Hall apologized at the close of the defense that no poison had been found in the stomach. Then he dwelt upon how they, with Dennis Sheedy behind them, like thieves and ghouls, sneaked to the grave yard and took up the liver and other organs, took them to CHicago in the hope still of convicting that poor broken-hearted woman with the murder of her husband - for the purpose of getting the property. Then he asked if any one of the jurors believed John Sheedy had been poisoned; if so what evidence did they base it on. Why didn't you arrest the doctors or others at his bedside that night? Dr. Hart told you he had been suspicioned. No! he had no interest in John Sheedy's estate. Mrs. Sheedy was and they, to get thirty-five or firty thousand dollars worth of property - solely to get the property." said Mr. Strode.

He then reviewed the condition of Sheedy prior to his death reading authorities to show that he lived long beyond the time in all rules laid down in medical works relating to poisoning cases, refuting the statements, through these, of Dr. Winnett and others.

The ring was shown the jury and Mr. Strode stated that the prosecution had made a great point of it in maintaining that it was one given him by Mrs. Sheedy and yet totally failed to bring any evidence to show that Mary Sheedy ever owned such a ring. Endeavoring to slip the ring on his finger and finding it would not fit, sought to have Monday McFarland place it upon his finger but the prosecution strenuously objected. He then charged that this was sufficient evidence that the charges against his client were trumped up and that the case had wholly been brought about by detectives.

Taking the hair alleged to have been taken from Mrs. Sheedy's body it was exhibited to the jury, the speaker dwelling upon his belief that it was concocted scheme against his client, a com

[Continued on Fifth Page.]

A Great Crowd

(Continued from First Page.)

parison of it with hair from his client's head was made

Becoming more that ever convinced that the hair had never been on the head or body of Mary Sheedy he turned to Mr.Lambertson and charged the whole thing a

AN INFAMOUS PLOT

of the detectives and prossenting attorneys, meanwhile asking to allow Mary Sheedy to walk up to the jury box and submit the hair of her head to a closer scrutiny by the jurors that a truer comparison might be made.

Mr. Lambartson arose and objected to such a proceeding as it was purely evidence and the case was now closed, and in warming up his objections and defending himself from Mr. Strode's charges of a combined plot pf attorneys and detectives shook his fist at the speaker and said:

"YOU ARE A LIAR, Mr.Strode and you know it."

Judge Field with much surprise and appareat indignation called him downand lectured him on such conduct saying such language coming from such a source in the court room indeed surprised him

The crowded court room seemed to be spontaneous in applause, but this only increased the ire of the court and he gave due notice that at the least the repetition of such a thing the room would be cleared and no spectators admitted as the case was one of too great importance, too serious for such actions.

Mr.Strode raised an "Amen" to its and coincided with the judge. He continued his remarks to the jury addressing them as to what had been introduced as evidence and duty in its consideration, holding out to them that the state had not only failed to bring out any evidence, convicting or otherwise, but had clearly failed to even make a case.

After admonishing the jury that the court would instruct them that they could not consider the confession of McFarland as against Mrs.Sheedy and Monday McFarland would be acquitted he closed his arguments with some beautiful quotation feelingly delivered to the jury, bringing tears to the eyes of many.

"My client," he said in one instance, "may have been a little careless in her early life, but God knows she is not guilty of this murder, Then, gentlemen, let me implore you to restore my client to her freedom, to her loving sisters; to that aged mother who now lies postrate on a bed of sickness in another state. O, hasten, gentlemen to cheer that good old Christian mother's heart by giving back to her her youngest daughter."

G. M. LAMBEDTSON.

It fell to Hon. G. M. Lambertson of the prosecution to deliver the closing arguments and it was well for the state, for more able one would be hard to find for this duty.

He began at 11:20 with an eloquent descrition of the deed pf Sunday evening. January 11th, his language being clear and classic. He would occasionally drift off, however, to wallop Mr.Strode in a spirit of revenge for what the gentleman said during the morning, this would bring a response and ere recess was taken several disgraceful parleys were witnessed.

At 2 o'clock this afternoon the court room was insufficient to accommodate the crowd, and Mr.Lambertson, who had just warmed into eloquence was continuing his arguments as THE CALL went to press.

THE END OF A GREAT TRIAL.

Never in the history of Nebraska has there been a murder trial that has excited greater attention and been so thoroughly published in the newspapers as the Sheedy trial that has just closed. Not by the boundaries of the stat has the interest in the case been confined or its pro's and con's vigorously discussed. The manner of the murder. The prominence of the murdered man in his business that ramify's to every city. The money at stake in the case, the unnatural and remarkable confession that the jury has practically said was extorted from one of the accused, and the fact that the other accused was a woman and wife of the murdered man, all have given the great prominence that the case attained. It was one of the most remarkable cases of circumstantial evidence ever presented to a jury and it was a case in which the zeal of detectives to find some parties to answer for the crime was brought prominently to view. The case brought some of the abelest attorneys of the state into its prosecution and defense.

The prosecuting attorneys, Mr. Snell and Mr. F. M. Hall, are members of two prominent law firms in the state and Mr. Lambertson has a record of being among the ablest attorneys in Nebraska. On the part of the defense Messrs. Billingsley and Woodward are a firm of attorneys of long standing wide acquaintance and much success, while Judge Weir of Boise City is one of the most prominent attorneys in that new state. It was a great attorneys battle.

From the time that the first suspicions were cast upon the now acquitted parties the great majority of the newspapers that have discussed the case have been vigorous and uncompromising prosecutors. No attorneys ever prosecuted a case in which more willing assistance was given them and public discussion carried in channels for their benefit. So marked has this been that it is no surprise that it has had the effect of a reaction in favor of the parties accused. The verdict of not guilty is accepted, especially by those best posted in law, and evidence, as a verdict that the jury was warranted in making.

The old maxim of the law that it is better for nonety-nine guilty persons to escape rather than that one innocent suffer is firmly grounded in the minds of the people. And public opinion has not been such as those who have simply read accounts of the trial would be lead to believe. This was once manifest by the great audience at the trial it is more manifest in the discussions upon the streets today. The attorneys for the defense made a great fight for their clients and the congratulations that they receive have been earned in a four weeks trial that will go down to history as one of the greatest legal battles in the annals of the courts of the state.