171
LINCOLN, LANCASTER COUNTY, NEBRASKA, THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1891 NUMBER 86.
without exception they were intimate associates of Mrs. Sheedy and testified with the utmost reluctance. But Mrs. Hood did relate how angry Mrs. Sheedy was because Sheedy failed to meet her at the train upon her return from Buffalo, last September. She had telegraphed to him from Chicago that she would arrive next day, but he did not go to meet her. Does that imply affection and domestic harmony? Mrs. Hood also told you that Mrs. Sheedy did leave her husband because he had abused her. Mrs. Hood related to you that Mrs. Sheedy came to her house and asked permission to remain until she could affect arrangements for leaving Sheedy. She also told about Mrs. Sheedy saying she was preparing to leave her husband, having at the time packed her trunks and made arrangements for their transfer to the train. Does this constitute a picture of affectionate and serene home life?
Mrs. Swift has also told us that Mrs. Sheedy had said to her that she would much prefer to live with an ordinary laboring man who received only a weekly stipend, to remaining with John Sheedy. Johnny Clouser, who was an inmate of the family, told us Mrs. Sheedy wanted to get a divorce.
This trouble all arose after her return from Buffalo, and following the appearance of this man Walstrom upon the scene. What were her relations with Walstrom? She first met him in Buffalo in July or August. She returned to Lincoln in September. Prior to Walstrom's arrival, Mrs. Sheedy had told friends that she expected him to come to Lincoln. He did come, and going to the Windsor hotel, where Johnny Clousner was employed, called him out and introduced himself by saying he was the young man about whom Mrs. Sheedy had spoken. They secured a room together in the Heater block. What was the object of having Clausen room with Walstrom? The design of this scheming pair was to utilize Clausen as an errand boy to carry notes back and forward from one to the other. These notes did pass. They were always sealed and never addressed on the envelope. Who has these notes? They are in the hands of the defense in this case, and it does not show one of them. If they were harmless, as will be told you, why did they not have the least wrongful of these billet doux produced and submitted to prove this assertion. What else did Mrs. Sheedy send to Walstrom's room? Wine, fried chicken and other delicacies. She also sent him a ring pouch, bought him socks and night shirts and neck ties. They endeavored to impress the jury with the belief that these things were purchased for her husband. Unfortunately for this assertion, the ties, socks and shirts were found in Walstrom's trunk after Sheedy's death. Had they been bought for Sheedy they would have been found among his effects, but Walstrom claimed them and took them away with him. Why did she make the house of Mrs. Carpenter a rendezvous for herself and Walstrom? Because she knew that Sheedy had no use for him, and his presence at her home would have led to trouble. She, therefore, met him secretly at Carpenters.
Mrs. Sheedy was almost without doubt, maintaining a criminal intimacy with Walstrom. She had evidently transferred her affections from Sheedy to Walstrom.
She desired to get rid of Sheedy to marry Walstrom, and chose Monday McFarland as the instrument to bring about her husband's death. We have shown where Gleason and Williams, the gamblers, were that night. It could not have been them who assaulted Sheedy. It was McFarland."
Mr. Snell followed this up by critically reviewing the confession made by McFarland, and in a powerful argument indicated how its truth was verified and supported by corroborative testimony drawn out during the trial. He significantly asked how McFarland could have went into such intricate details unless he had been present at the shooting on the evening of December 9. His statement made months ago related how he had secreted himself in the yard, and fired off the pistol when Sheedy and his wife entered the yard. How, in running away he had stumbled and fallen down. The testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hosmen, who were passing at the time, corroborated this.
The argument of Mr. Snell was replete with telling facts, presented with rare ability and pungent accuracy.
He was followed by Judge Wier of Boise, Idaho, on behalf of the defense, who was speaking when the News reporter left.
Sent Her to the Asylum.
Miss Mary Banghart, the maiden lady who created a sensation in the Sunday school at St. Paul M. E. church a week ago yesterday, by belaboring an innocent young man with her umbrella, was up before the insanity board Saturday evening, and after an examination ordered sent to the asylum. She is 45 years of age, a dressmaker by occupation, and during her residence in Lincoln, since 1876, she has by hard work accumulated considerable property. She has been living at 740 North Thirteenth street and neighbors testified that at midnight she would rouse them by shrill laughter and slugging, and when in her crazy moods would use very sulfurous and indecent language. She was possessed of a hallucination that everybody was talking about her, coupling her name with that of a former lover named Harry Mercer, back in Pennsylvania. Latterly she has evinced a belief that the families where she sewed were trying to poison her.
TUESDAY
Piling Ossa on Pelion.
The argument of Judge Weir in behalf of Mrs. Sheedy, before the district court yesterday afternoon, proved rather long drawn out, and the eminent advocate from Idaho did not conclude his remarks until about 4 o'clock, when he was followed by Counsel Woodward for Monday McFarland.
Judge Weir is gifted with a fluent and ready delivery that is not only interesting but also instructive. In his argument yesterday he confined himself largely to playing upon the sympathies of the jurors by portraying a pathetic word portrait of his "bereaved and brokenhearted client," whom he pictured as sitting in the shadow of a great and consuming sorrow, superinduced by the sudden and untimely death of her husband. The pathos of his theme appealed powerfully to the finer emotions, so much so indeed, that with one notable exception, that of Mrs. Sheedy herself, the ladies interested in the defense yielded to tears at frequent intervals. As for Mrs. Sheedy, there was but one time, and that only for a moment, that she manifested any feeling. Several times the learned and eloquent counsel, when soaring to the climax of a pathetic appeal, turned toward his client evidently expecting to find her in tears, hoping it to give added force to his appeal, but in each instance she disappointed him. She remained apparently unmoved, and so far as appearances went she was deaf, blind and dumb to all that passed in review. She appears to be an enigma which defies successful solution, and is no less and unsolved mystery to her own counsel than to the state and the audience. Her seeming indifference is an anomaly. She does not pose to the jury, but appears perfectly resigned to fate, indifferent to what that fate may be. When learned counsel portrayed the immortal soul of John Sheedy looking down from heaven, piercing the realms of infinite space and appealing to the persecuting spirit of Dennis Sheedy to cease its hounding of the "dear, beloved and refined client," the aforesaid client sat unmoved and seemingly oblivious to the affecting portrayal. The judge elaborated upon the diaphanous proposition that the death of Sheedy was the result of an attack upon him by two gamblers who were envious of his success in his profession. He denied that the confession of McFarland could be considered as militating in any manner against Mrs. Sheedy.
When we come to consider the guilt or innocence of Mrs. Sheedy we hold that the story extorted from the colored man is utterly and wholly untrue. I need only point out to you the improbable truth of that story. It is too revolting, too horrible to bear the semblance of truth. Look at her! She is a tender and loving woman, and as devoted to her husband as could be imagined. Considering this can you believe this awful statement? If it were possible to place its details where all the world could read and consider them, is there anyone who would give credence to the charges there made? It surpasses credulity that a refined and cultured lady like Mrs. Sheedy, surrounded with all the luxuries of life, could so far fall from female delicacy and innate purity as to submit to the embraces of a negro. It is false and should spurned by all impartial minds.
When Judge Wier had concluded Mr. Woodward for McFarland proceeded to argue in behlaf of his poor, ignorant and deceived client. His argument was consfined largely to a defense of Mrs. Sheedy and diatribes against Detective Jim Malone, who he pictured as a moral hourse thief and a conscienceless officer spurred on to persecute and malign this woman and the negro by the hope of a large reward.
Morning Session.
The court room was well filled with a large and interesting audience this morning when the sheriff announced that the judicial tribunal was ready for its diurnal business. It is noticeable that as the case drawn toward a close, the attendance is made up largely of ladies and the better class of male citizens, drawn to the court room doubtless to listen to and enjoy the concluding arguments of Colonel Lambertson, Frank Hall and Mr. Strode, the former for the prosecution and the latter for the defense. The above named counsel are looked upon as the heavy artillery in the case, and much is expected, as much will be realized of them in their arguments in this now famous case, destined to be accorded a leading place in the criminal annals of Lancaster county. So far as known, neither of these gentlemen had prepared any manuscript embodying their contemplated arguments, hence they were extemporaneous creation of the moment, save in so far as they were prompted by brief notes outling the thread of argument. It was noticed this morning that a rearrangement of the chairs occupied by Mrs. Sheedy and her relatives and friends had been made, and so placed as to bring them facing the jury, instead of the bar as heretofore.
Counsel Woodward proceeded with his argument, and for a dreary half hour devoted himself to a curious endeavor to convince the jury that Special Officer Krouse was concerned in the assault upon Sheedy, forsooth because he was found in the yard looking for the man who ran out of the back gate. Obviously forgetting this theory during the latter part of his address, Woodward advanced argument to show that the two men alleged to have been seen running up O street, were the parties who assaulted Sheedy. Speaking of the contradictory evidence given by the two boys, Hitchcock and Curry, relative to having seen two men fleeing south on O street, Woodward made the anomalous claim that the fact their evidence did not agree was to be regarded as especially strong for that singular reason.
It was generally understood that Mr. Woodward would close some time during the forenoon, and that he would be followed by Counsel Frank Hall, for the state, in an able argument in support of the prosecution. Acting upon this supposition, hundreds of people began coming into the court room about 10 o'clock, as it was generally believed that the effort of Mr. Hall would be of a character to command attention and elicit attention. And none were disappointed in even their highest expectations, for his address was not only logical, forceful and replete with telling points, but was furnished with captivating flights of eloquence, gems of thought happily expressed, all supplemented with an intense earnest of manner that led the audience in bonds of willin captivity. Even the jurors, several of whom had previously manifested symptoms of approaching somnolence awakened, and adjusting themselves too comfortable positions, prepared to be entertained. Ten minutes after Mr. Hall began talking every juror had forgotten the man in the orator, and as he warmed to his subject and grew impassioned, they leaned forward, listening earnestly and eagerly to every word that dropped from his lips. The court room was densely crowded, hundreds of chairs inside the railing being occupied. The ladies were out in force, and were treated to a rare intellectual fest of powerful reason brilliantly expressed. Even Judge Field lost interest in a book he had been reading and gave his undivided attention to the gifted counsel pleading in the forum. Mr. Hall said in substance:
May it please the court and jury:
It is with some embarrassment and reluctance that I shall attempt to address you upon this eventful occasion. It is one upon which I am little accustomed to appear, this being the first time I have taken part in a case where the charge was murder in the first degree, I regret that counsel who preceded me should have added to my embarrassment by charging that my connection with the case is for the purpose of extorting "blood money." as he terms it. I doubt not that you are destined to hear more in this same line from counsel for defense, some of who are yet to address you. You will hear that myself and Mr. Lambertson have been brought into the case to wring a conviction from you regardless of the law and facts. I have no desire to ask a conviction on that ground. Just why counsel for defense should elect to resort such tacts surpasses my comprehension and eludes reasonable solution. However I can surmise their motive and so can you. Personality I entertain no feeling of hostility against either of the prisoners, and would not raise my finger to do them an injury. But I have a duty to perform, and you, gentlemen of the jury have the same. It is true I have been earnest and zealous in the prosecution of this case but only in a professional way. If they object to that I answer that I have been actuated by none other than an honest motive. I appear because I believe the parties before you are guilty of the crime charged. The defense would have you believe we have fixed up a conspiracy to jeopardize the lives of Mary Sheedy and Monday McFarland solely to enhance the coffers of Dennis Sheedy. They complain because a reward has been offered for the apprehension and conviction of the party of parties responsible for the death of John Sheedy. They carp because associate counsel has been employed to assist the prosecuting attorney. Is there anything wrong in offering a reward and employing all legitimate means to punish murder? Was not Mr. Strode, leading counsel for the defense in this case, employed as associate counsel in a similar manner in the Bohanan.
When Woodward arose yesterday to address you I felt a presentment that Col. Lambertson and Myself had been eliminated from this case, the same as Judge Weir sought to eliminate Mrs. Sheedy yesterday, forsooth because no poison had been found in the stomach of her dead husband.
This is an important case and it has been our endeavor to spread the evidence out before you for careful inspection and mature consideration. The drifts and trend of the evidence adduced is, in my mind, decidedly in the direction of showing the conviction of these defendants with the murder of John Sheedy. I would have you, in the jury room, carefully weigh the evidence presented. We ask no conviction in the case unless we shall have convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoners now trial. If we succeed in doing this, then we ask you to do your duty to discharge the responsibility imposed upon you. It is true that two lives are at stake, but that is not all. The lives of the people cry out for protection against murder. It does not seem to me that the defendants have any reason to complain because the state has earnestly sought to procure evidence against them. They have told you that detectives have been employed and rewards offered. Is this not always done? Did not Mrs. Sheedy herself at first offer a reward, and afterward, when the coils began to close around her as an accessory to her husband's death, did she not withdraw it? Complaints from her counsel upon this score come with exceeding poor grace in the light of her own action. Are we to be maligned and grossly abused because we decline to stand around like dumb cattle and make no effort to hunt down the murderers of John Sheedy?
We now come down to an examination of the connection of these defendants with the murder of John Sheedy. We believe the crime was inspired by a woman who used the negro as a means for carrying out her infamous designs, which her malevolent brain formulated in the silent hours of the night while lying beside the man she despised and abhorred. We believe this woman was Mary Sheedy and that this poor, deluded negro was no more than a pliant tool used by her because the muscle nature had denied her. I believe Mrs. Sheedy had the nerve and the wickedness of heart to have stood outside that door and slugged Sheedy to death as he passed out, but she lacked the strength and employed McFarland. If you think she has not the desperate nerve to perpetrate such an act, you do not know the woman. If ever a criminal claimed my sympathies it is a man who has yielded to such baleful influences as a woman of her kind can exert, and rendered him powerless of self-control. And that was the position in which this deceived negro was placed. He had no murder in his heart until the poison of assassination was put there by this woman. His motive was not malice nor revenge. The deed was committed as a pure matter of dollars and cents weighed against human life. If you can find any mitigating circumstance surrounding murder of this character, then, in the name of God, lean to the side of mercy and apply them to Monday McFarland.
It seems to me that the attitude of Mrs. Sheedy in connection with the murder is enough to break the strongest heart. Look at the desolation it has wrought. Who was McFarland? He was a barber earning an honest living for a loved family. What will be the result? He will be hung leaving a widowed wife and an orphan children to mourn his loss and bear the undying infamy of the crime, and all that this strony hearted, brazen woman might satisfy the cravings of guilty love. Here was the evil genius that conceived the crime, and her evil brain planned the details. It surpasses my comprehension how a man can review the awful facts in this case and reach any other conclusion. You can not for a moment conceive that McFarland went there voluntarily and murdered the man who above all others had been his friend and benefactor. Ah, there was a propelling force behind him. He had gone so fat that he could not back out of fear of vengeance from Mrs. Sheedy on the one hand and apprehension of detection and punishment on the other. He halted in this position and struck the blow that killed John Sheedy. It was only when she was able to inject into his heart the murderous poison of her own depraved nature and steeled his arm by her own nerve that he consented and committed the awful crime.
Murder is not natural; it is unnatural; human nature revolts at it and shrinks from its contemplation. When we look at some people charged with a grave crime and view their faces we shrink from accusing them. It almost exceeds human belief that a woman could plan such a crime, but when you analyze this case see, the hostility and repugnance for her husband, discern her love for Walstrom and behold the iron nerve shown by her during this trial, I cannot but agree that the face is not always an accurate index to the soul. What was the motive in this case? when you charge Monday McFarland with murder you begin to look for the motive that actuated him. He was a barber, and so far as we know had never committed any serious offense before. Now what do we find him? We find him a murderer. I think every man on this jury believes he struck John Sheedy. What was it that caused him to do it? Why she appeared before him in more alluring shape than did Satan to our Savior on the mountain. She pilled silver against blood. He did not take kindly to the scheme, and bent upon her purpose and determined to accomplish it at all hazards, she dazzled his eyes with the glitter of diamonds. Still he hesitated. Her next step was to enfold to him her abandoned condition and appealed to his sympathies for a woman in distress. What else did she do? After all her blandishments had failed she volunteered to submit to his embraces and unblushingly bartered away her chastity and her womanhood.
If I did not believe this I would not say it: But look at the confession and you will see how probable it is. Tell me that a woman who has murder in her heart will not sacrifice her virtue! It is nonsense. It was then his manhood and self-possession departed. From this time he was as dough in the hands of this scheming and evil minded woman. He has disclosed in his confession that he was trying to break away from the terrible influence. But he had gone so far that he could not retreat. His heart was not in his work and his arm was paralyzed. His nerve forsook him at the critical moment and the cane fell from his palsied hand after striking his friend. He was urged on by the boundless nerve of the woman.
But what was her motive? We are not required to seek far to find it. It was Walstrom. With her acquaintance with him she transferred her affections, and domestic inharmony entered the family. If others could tell their story they would tell you that Mrs. Sheedy loathed her husband after this. After becoming acquainted with Walstrom at Buffalo he soon appeared in Lincoln. What did she tell Johnny Clansman? That a man would be here from Buffalo to take her away. Do you think for a moment that it was a harmless friendship between Mrs. Sheedy and Walstrom? Did she send edible delicacies to Johnny Clausman before Walstrom Came? No. Did she buy neckties, socks, and night shirts for anyone but Walstrom? Not that the evidence has doc;passed/
At the time the News report closed Mr. Hall was still addressing the jury, and making an appeal whose powerful logic and splendid brilliance held an audience limited only by the capacity of the court room, spellbound and delighted.
Sudden Deaths.
Heart disease is by far the most frequent cause of sudden death, which in three out of four cases is unsuspected. The symptoms are not generally understood. These are a habit of lying on the right side, short breath, pain or distress in side, back or shoulder, irregular pulse, asthma, weak and hungry spells, wind in stomach, swelling of ankles or dropey, oppression, dry cough and smothering. Dr. Miles' illustrated book on heart disease, free at tall druggists who sell and guarantee Dr. Miles' unequaled New Heart Cure, and his Restorative Nervine, which cures nervousness, headache, sleeplessness, effects of drinking, etc. It contains no opiates.
FOR LADIES ONLY.
Dr. Le Duc's Periodical Pills.
From Paris, France, established, Europe 1889, England 1850, Canada, 1873, United States 1889, safe, pleasant and always reliable, act directly and positively cure from whatever cause, all periodical troubled, monthly, suppressions, monthly irregularities and suppressed menstruation, peculiar to women. Warranted to cure the large proportion of ills to which ladies are liable. Price $w, or three for $5. Mailed anywhere on receipt of price. The public and trade supplied with the genuine pill only by H. W. Brown, 127 South 11th St., Lincoln, Neb., Wholesale and retail.
172
LEGAL NEWS.
____________
TUESDAY
____________
DAVID BUTLER.
____________
Death Removes a Well Known Pioneer and Ex-Governor of Nebraska.
The sudden death at Pawnee City of David Butler, who was cut down by heart failure while at work in his years, removes from earth a man whose name will ever be associated with the early history of Nebraska. He was born near Bloomington, Ind., December 15, 1829, and remained on his father's farm until 21 years old. He engaged with his father in the cattle business, but the latter dying soon after, he embarked in mercantile life. The panic of 1857 ruined him with thousands of others, and in 1858 he removed to Nebraska, settling in Pawnee county. He soon amassed a fortune in cattle and mercantile business and in 1880 was married to Miss Lydia Storey of Bloomington, and the following year was elected to the territorial legislature, serving until 1886.
David Butler was the first governor of the state of Nebraska. He succeeded Alvin Saunders, who was the last territorial governor. Governor Butler was elected in 1866, but did not enter upon the duties of the office until the admission of the state into the union in February, 1867. On October 8, 1869, he was re-elected and again elected October 18, 1870. On June 2, 1871, Governor Butler was succeeded by W. H. James who as secretary of state assumed the office. Secretary James became acting governor on the order of the legislature which impeached Butler. The impeachment proceedings attracted world-wide attention. Butler was charged with using $16,881.26 of state funds for his private purposes. In his answer he admitted that he had received the money, but claimed that he had borrowed it with the consent of the state treasure and had secured the treasurer by mortgages on valuable real estate. The legislature removed Governor Butler from office. Since then the state has sold the real estate under mortgages and realized many thousands of dollars over and above the amount used by the removed governor. At several sessions of the legislature Governor Butler has caused to be presented a bill authorizing that the balance thus realized, after all principal and interest should be paid, be paid over to him, but the prejudice was so strong that his claim has hardly received consideration. Of late Governor Butler has been identified with the independent movement in this state. Ex-Governor Butler was born in Indiana and located in Pawnee county in 1858. He was a member of the territorial legislature. In 1888 he was the labor candidate for governor.
The most exciting period of Nebraska history was before and during the impeachment of Governor Butler. The rivalry between Lincoln and Omaha for capital honors, a heated senatorial contest and several minor matters roused an intense factional and sectional feeling. Butler had thrown his great energy and ability for Lincoln, and his influence turned the scale in the city's favor. Lincoln, and his influence turned the scale in this city's favor. Lincoln's enemies became his personal ones, and the impeachment trial followed. He fought valiantly, and although the legislature by an infinitesimal majority impeached him, he appealed to the people, who recognized the justice of his claim, and the ignominy was wiped away. His enemies succeeded, however in forcing him from political life, and he retired, once afterwards coming up as a senator from Pawnee.
The gubernatorial mansion, a handsome structure of Butler is still standing at Eighth and Washington streets. Butler spent a fortune in fixing it up, and many notable gatherings were held there. When he retired from political life he sold it to "Lord" Jones, and Englishman, man for a paltry sum. Jones still owns it, and the undivided tract surrounding it, worth today many times what he paid for it. S. B. Hohman resides there. Butler spent his money lavishly for Lincoln and his friends, but adversity drove away many who had benefitted by his bounty. His death will be mourned by every one who knew him and appreciated his manly qualities.
__________________________________
WEDNESDAY
_________________
Yesterday Afternoon.
When the hour arrived for the court to reconvene yesterday afternoon, an audience drawn from the culture and refinement of Lincoln homes graced the occasion with its presence. Hundreds of elegantly attired ladies were there, seated inside and outside the railing separating the auditorium from the space reserved for the privileged relatives and friends of the prisoners, the counsel, the court and attorneys for the state. The sides of the room were fringed with a closely packed mass of humanity which stood for hours hanging upon the burning words of Counsel Frank Hall, who was at the time making his argument to the jury.
Resuming the thread of discussion broken by the noon hour, Mr. Hall said:
The learned advocate who addressed you yesterday tried to convince you that this prosecution was being waged against Mrs. Sheedy for a venal purpose, and he though that is the spirit of John Sheedy could speak from the great beyond to Dennis Sheedy it would exclaim: "For God's sake stop that persecution of my beloved wife. If John Sheedy's spirit could speak from that place, he would tell a different story. I have no doubt that John Sheedy's spirit has visited this woman in her solitary confinement more than once since, and took its flight, and I would to God that you might know the story that John Sheedy's spirit could tell. He would tell a story that would stir the pulsations of your heart. He would tell a story that has not been told by the witnesses upon this stand. He would tell you what occurred in his home circle after he was assaulted, and unless that spirit tells the story, I fear you will never know 1, since the only people who do know it, do not see fit to tell it.
Talk about the spirit of John Sheedy calling his brother to desist from this cruel prosecution, why, if there ever was such case under nigh heaven which spoke in tongues of fire to avenge the murder of John Sheedy, his spirit would carry that message to his brother, Dennis Sheedy: You have heard of the murder of King Claudius. How his spirit returned and chided his son, Hamlet for not avenging his most cruel and could murder. Do you believe Dennis Sheedy is prosecuting this case for the paltry amount that will fall to his share of the estate of John Sheedy? Why, if a wife can murder her husband in an enlightened, Christian community, and the brother would not raise his arm to defend it, to avenge it, to prosecute the guilty party, he would be unworthy of the name of a brother, and I think John Sheedy's spirit would come back to haunt him and chide him for the brotherly duty neglected and unfilled. From my standing, it is most commendable in the brother of a dead man o spend his own money, his own time and his own strength for the purpose of prosecuting the parties who murdered his brother. Talk to me about blood money, and about the detectives and the officers and the attorneys having their pockets lined with Dennis Sheedy'smoney. If you can show that a dollar of Dennis Sheedy's money has been illegitimately used in this prosecution, then show it and damn this prosecution if you can. That is for the purpose of appealing to your meaner nature. That appeal is unworthy of the able counsel for the defense. It is an appeal to your baser passions for the purpose of awakening a sympathy for the woman and a prejudice against Dennis Sheedy. Because I conceive of nothing meaner, nothing baser, nothing more depraved than for the brother of the murdered mand to prosecute a woman with the belief that she was innocent.
Mr. Courtnay tells what Dennis Sheedy did for this woman before she was suspected, before she was arrested, before the finger of suspicion pointed to her; that he arranged everything in the most systematic manner. He replenished her bank account with $550 that he had collected from different people who owed his brother's estate. Did he put it down in his own pocket and go to his home in Denver? No, he hired an attorney and paid him out of his own pocket, and put everything in the best possible shape he could for this woman, and put this money in the bank to her account, and then said, I have done all I could for you if you were a sister. That is what Courtnay testified to, and this is what Dennis Sheedy did, and notwithstanding all this they have the hardihood, and in a spirit of desperation, they would attempt to poison your mind against Dennis Sheedy. Have you seen Dennis Sheedy hounding in the courtroom? Have you seen Dennis Sheedy hounding detectives to prosecute this woman? The only time Dennis Sheedy has made his appearance in this court house was in obedience to a subpoena issued by the defense in this case. Have you seen any other blood thirsty relatives of this murdered man present as though they were eager to work up a case and lend their assistance in the prosecution of this woman. It is not so enticing to their ears as it seems to be to that of the defense. I mention this because I say it is not fair. It is unmanly, it is unprofessional on the part of these defendants to try to put this phase in this case. God knows I have no objection, not one word of fault to find with the defense. I would not have cared if they had employed the best counsel in the land, if they have not got them; I would not want them to leave one stone unturned for the defense of this case. If they can prove by the ability of counsel, or by detectives, or by the ability of anybody that these defendants are not guilty, it is their duty as advocates of the defense to do it, and I shall find no fault with their employing Mr. Pinneo, Mr. Carder or Mr. Orow or anybody else. It is immaterial to me how many detectives they get, or where they find their evidence, so it is evidence. They have bought counsel from Idaho, and I am glad of it. I am glad that when a conviction is had in this case nobody can say it was brought about for want of ability or enterprise in behalf of these prisoners.
How did she know who Walstrom was? She had met him only a few days in a distant state while she herself was an inmate of a hospital. She could not possibly known but little of his antecedents, and the meagre information she possessed must have been gotten from him. Then why was she so solutions for his welfare? Why did she want him to room with Johnny Clausner? Had she ever asked Clausner to room with anybody else? They assert there is no crime in a married woman making presents to a young man; that she bought and paid for them and could bestow them upon whom she pleased. But what induced her; what motive governed this woman in making these presents to a young man with whom her acquaintance had been so brief? But, gentlemen, don't you believe these presents went where he affections were?
I concede that a married woman may with propriety write a young man a letter. It is not the letter; it is the content of it that reflect upon her. Do you for a moment believe that John Sheedy knew of this clandestine correspondence between his wife and this recent importation from Birmingham, Alabama? If this correspondence was harmless in its character, why did not her counsel introduce the notes that must have been in her custody, in evidence and refute the charge that it was of a incriminating nature? Walstrom had her notes and she had his. Why does not Walstrom come into court, produce these notes and clear Mary Sheedy from the blighting suspicion that attaches to her? He dare not do it; and doubtless she has long since consigned the damning letters of Walstrom to the flames, and placed the character of their contents beyond human reach. Why, if these notes were guiltless of crime, were they afraid to confide the to the custody of the United States malls? Because they feared discovery, and used a private messenger whom they could trust.
About the first thing she done after Sheedy had died was to send for Walstrom. Why did she not send for some of the family friends? Because Walstrom was most interested in Sheedy's death. There is no proposition more true than that murder will out. it may go unpunished for a time, but tardy justice will at last o'ertake and punish crime. In an affair of this kind the perpetrator usually leaves some tell this clue behind, and in this instance Mrs. Sheedy made the fatal mistake of supposing that the mind of Monday McFarland would be a safe storehouse for her hideous secret. But the human mind is so constituted that it shrinks from crime, and after staggering under the burden that weighed down his conscience for a few days. Monday McFarland vomited forth his confession and 'relieved himself of the terrible secret. That secret had wandered like a white phantom through the chambers of his brain; it had seethed through his veins and flitted across his face until he believed every man and woman he met read his secret. He suspected that a thousand eyes read it in his every expression until he yielded to the pressure and told it. He could not but relieve his mind of the awful burden that weighed it down and haunted every moment of his existence. He told it because it was an unwilling occupant of his heart and cried for release, and I'll venture he felt relieved if not happy when he vomited it out and got rid of it.
Why from the conduct of Mrs. Sheedy since she has been here on trial you would think she is not interested. But, while she has played her part well, she has not played the part of 'a bereaved, sorrowing and broken-hearted woman' so feelingly portrayed by Judge Weir. It is difficult for any one to act a dual role, and in attempting it she has most miserably failed. Do you believe that if she is the woman Judge Weir has pictured she could sit here as she has, as cold as a marble statue and manifest no more emotion than a figure carved in stone? Has her bearing been that of a 'sorrowing, broken-hearted, grief-stricken woman?' No; it has been the reverse; it has been malignantly defiant and repulsive brazen.
Reply to Woodward's reference to the confession Mr. Hall said: "He has not sought to deny its truth, but has made the claim that it was not properly procured. Why did they not disprove its truth? Why did they not make any attempt to show us where Monday McFarland was on that eventful evening? Why Woodward, had you only gone a little further and attempted to show where he was a half hour before and after the assault upon Sheedy we would have allowed you that latitude? But you didn't dare to do it. Do Hosman and his wife know better where McFarland was on that night of December than he does himself. He has confessed four separate times and each time said it was he who fired the shot that night in Sheedy's yard, and he ought to know.
Yes, murder will out, and on the evening in question, while returning from the Musee, Mrs. Sheedy, whose guilty mind surged beneath her breast, sought relief from the oppression that weighed it down by confiding to Mrs. hood a sense of impending evil. "I feel that something is going to happen," remarked Mrs. Sheedy that evening. "I felt the same the night John was cut with a knife once before." This discloses that she knew of the contemplated assault upon her husband. She knew that the assassin was at that moment laying in wait for her husband.
Counsel Hall then proceeded to an exhaustive review of the voluminous evidence. His effort was a masterly one, and places him in the front rank of Nebraska's most logical, forceful and brilliant lawyers. His delivery is easy and eloquent, and also earnest, convincing and captivating. The immense audience listened and wrapt with attention and visible pleasure throughout his entire argument, which reached the climax at the close, when he made a peroration of unrivalied delicacy of expression and beauty of finish. R. D. Stearns, counsel for Mrs. Sheedy, next addressed the jury. He characterized the action of County Attorney Snell in this prosecution as that of a bound out boy. He scored him for playing a secondary part and not doing more questioning and cross-questioning. he condemned the alleged charity of Dennis Sheedy in giving Mrs. Sheedy $550 "This is wonderful charity," said he. when we remember that he took home with him a valuable gold watch and chain and other articles not belonging to him. This action is to be investigated later. What credence can you give to Goldwater's testimony after he told the story that he did to Burr about Jim Malone offering him a reward of $200? It would take a magnifying glass of 2,000,000 power to find the veracity of Goldwater, particularly if Jim Malone had polished him up. This man did as he did because he wished to stand in with the officers, and was after gain.
"A remarkable instance in this case is that several persons had passed and repassed on the porch, it had been scanned in search for blood spots, but the cane had bot been found. Fully twenty minutes had passed before--it was discovered there. Why don't the prosecution prove that the cane was not put there after John Sheedy was taken into the house? Another remarkable circumstance is the fact that the prosecution had not proved that the ring had been given to Monday McFarland. Could they not have proven this by half a dozen witnesses.
"The prosecution would make you believe that Mrs. Sheedy is a monster of wickedness. The face of Mrs. Sheedy indicates that of a cultured or at least refind woman. If you have scanned the face of Mrs. Sheedy you cannot help but see that it is a refutation of the scandalous, cruel and wicked lies that the prosecution are so glib in relating. You cannot find anybody who can believe the story of illicit intercourse with the negro. It could not have happened at all. It never did happen. Just think to what depths of degradation a woman would have sunk to be guilty of such a thing. Nature herself refutes, denies and condemns the awful story. Just think, gentlemen of the jury, of the absurdity of a lover being willing to kill a man so that another lover might supplant the man who did the killing. Is such a thing probable? And yet that is the way that the prosecution would have you believe. They claim that Monday McFarland, out of his love for Mrs. Sheedy, killed Mr. Sheedy so that another lover, Walstrom, might carry her away. It is out of the range of human reason.
"The presumption of good character like that of innocence is always held until proven otherwise, and the attorneys for the prosecution have no right to have you presume otherwise."
This Morning.
Mr. Stearns "spit" on his hands and launched out as follows:
Now, gentlemen, I will not talk long, but conclude the line of argument upon which I was engaged when we closed last evening. When we closed I was discussing some of the evidence adduced by the prosecution to show the connection of Mrs. Sheedy with this crime. There has been considerable said about Mrs. Sheedy making presents to Walstrom, such as night shirts, neckties and ring pouches. She may have done this, but I call attention to the fact that non of the witnesses summoned to the stand by the state conclusively identified any of these articles. Mr. Hall displayed a wondering ingeniousness in questioning these witnesses, and may have left the impression upon your minds that the articles were fully identified, but I claim without fear of contradiction--that they were not identified. You cannot possibly believe there was any criminal intimacy between Mrs. Sheedy and this man Walstrom. There is not a scintilla of evidence to prove it. The state asks why we have not produced these articles alleged to have been presented by Mrs. Sheedy to Walstrom to prove they were not given him instead of her husband. We answer they had possession of the articles. They had Walstrom too, why did they not keep them and him? Why did they not hold him? I undertake to say this--if there was anything criminal between Mrs. Sheedy and Walstrom, why have they allowed Walstrom to escape? The truth is the prosecution has ransacked creation in support of the proposition that criminal intimacy existed between these two people and they have conspicuously failed to find anything to corroborate the allegation. Where is Walstrom? If criminal intimacy existed, then Walstrom is as guilty as she. They why is he not here? The criminality they spoke about is evolved from their inner consciousness and is a creation of diseased brains, and there is nothing in it. The prosecution holds that whoever dealt Sheedy the fatal blow must have had assistance from a co-conspirator inside. What was that freak, Krouse, from the musee, doing around there that night? His own evidence shows that he had taken refuge behind a tree to avoid the bullets from John Sheedy's revolver. He rushed into the yard, was met by Mrs. Sheedy, who invited him into the house. He did not go, but started to run back of the house and ran slap dash into the lattice work. If the east curtain, as he claims was up, would not the lighting shining ut have show the lattice and disclosed it to his view.
They tell you that John Sheedy died like a dog. I cannot conceive the motive that could induce an attorney to make such a statement. What could have been done for him that was not done? Did she not wipe the dew of death from his brow and moisten his lips in the last moment of dissolution. She called a consultation of the attending physicians and had agreed to abide by the decision of a majority of these doctors. She did everything possible for her dying husband and exhibited a wifely devotion.
Mr. Stearns then devoted himself to a discussion of the unreliability of circumstantial evidence, holding that evidence of this character has been responsible for a long list of judicial murders, several of which he cited.
Stearns closed with a humorous reference to an alleged attempt of Lambertson to enliven the trial and create a sensation by the introduction of metaphorical Greek fire in the placing of Sheedy's skull in evidence.
Col. Philpott, leading counsel for McFarland, followed Mr. Strode, and opened by attempting to get what he called a statement before the jury. This statement related to when and where McFarland was born, and his subsequent wandering until he came to Lincoln about nine years ago. Counsel for state objected to this statement, holding it did not relate to evidence adduced on the trial, and it was ruled out.
Col. Philpott then devoted himself to the confession of McFarland, and emphatically denied its truth. He did not deny that McFarland had made it, but maintained that it had been obtained by improper methods, and made at a time when the negro had reason to apprehend that he was in mortal peril of his life, and made the statements contained in the confession as the only means of staving off Impending danger
The colonel did not overlook any bets in Jim Malone's direction, and in a spirit of ungodly glee, he held a metaphorical war dance upon Jim's stalwart carcass, much to the amusement of Jim and the tittering audience. Then the colonel turned himself loose on the doctors and proved, to his own satisfaction at least. that those called in the case were a lot of gimlet eyed ignoramuses who did not know the difference between to oblongata and a dime museum freak.
The colonel held high carnival among the witnesses, and made the court room reverberate with his stentorian appeals for justice for his client, and frantic denunciation of the alleged crooked methods of the defense in trying to convict him.
While Col. Philpott's argument was in progress, Charles Johnson, one of the jurors, became ill, and court adjourned until 2 o'clock.
Mr. Strode will address the jury next, and Col. Lambertson will close for the prosecution, probably commencing tomorrow morning. His argument will be an able and brilliant one, and the fact that he is to address the court will be sufficient to crowd the court room with a splendid audience. _________________
HE DISAPPEARED. _________
Charles Burns, a Burglar Boy, Takes French Leave of Jail.
Charles Burns, colored, made his escape from the county jail yesterday afternoon very slickly and mysteriously. The interior of the jail was being painted, and Burns was taken into the wash house, a one story structure connecting with the jail on the east, by the turn key, Mike Mooney, and when the matters back was turned the youngster slid out, and nothing has since been seen of him, although search has been made. Mike is greatly chagrined over the matter, but he is exonerated from blame, as the escape was not due to carelessness on his part. Burns is about 19 years old, and was under $300 bonds for breaking into the Racket store, 1020 P street, being caught in the act.
In Governor Butler's Memory.
Business is at a stand still at the state house today. Gov. Th[a?]yer, Superintendent Goudy, and a number of of other officials went to Pawnee City this morning to attend the funeral of ex-Gov. Butler. Flags float at half-mast from the state house, the entrances to the vast building are draped in the habiliments of woe and the state offices are all closed out of respect for the memory of the deceased.
173
FRIDAY ______
The End Close at Hand.
When Judge Field's court resumed doling out justice in the Sheedy case this morning, no incidents of special interest transpired until ex-Sargeant W. W. Carder, of the old police force was placed upon the stand.
Mr. Carder had been ill for several days, and was not feeling in the best of humor: However,he manifested no irritability of temper during his direct examination by Counsel Strode for the defense, but balked at the first question put by Counsel Frank Hall and preemptorily refused to proceed unless Detective Malone and ex-Marshal Melick were removed from the room while his cross-examination was in progress.
Mr. Hall informed the witness that Malone and Melick were present upon permission of the court, and that he would have to proceed with his testimony. He still remained obdurate though appealed to by counsel for defense to answer. For three or four minutes Carder refused to open his lips, though twice warned by Judge Field to answer the questions asked. The situation became intensely interesting when Judge field, turning to the court reporter directed him to read the question, and at once cautioning Carder that unless he obeyed the court would apply a remedy to cure his obstinacy. Carder still remained recaicitrant, and everybody was expecting to hear an [?] court issued for his arrest for order [?] with a look of intense contempt, when, [?] this contempt, hatred and unuttered, directed at Malone and Melick, he pitched his voice in a minor key and answered. Carder had been summoned by defense to testify that the cane brought to the station the evening of the assault upon Sheedy had belonged to witness, who had, months before left it at the police station one night and lost it in some way.
His manner while upon the stand did not imply so much kindly regard for the defense as it did intense dislike of Malone and Melick, growing out of personal differences between them while all were members of the police force.
It suggested that he would rather see the prosecution fall in establishing a case against the defendants, not for any bias he entertained for them, as to humiliate his personal enemies by thwarting their efforts to secure a conviction and earning consequent applause as officers.
The evidence, including rebuttal by the state, will have been concluded this evening, or tomorrow morning, and final argument commenced by counsel not later than tomorrow afternoon. Prosecuting attorney Snell will open [?] prosecution, Mr. Hall will [?] the initial arguments of defense allow the Lambertson will offer the closing arguments for the state.
For the defense Mr. Stearns will open, to be followed by Col. Philpott, leaving Sheedy and M[?] in behalf of Mrs. Sheedy and McFarland. The case is one offering rare opportunities for logic, eloquence, wit and profound reasoning, and the arguments to be made by Messrs. Lambertson and Hall for the prosecution, and those of Col. Philpott and Strode for the defense are looked forward to with high expectation and pleasant anticipation by the throng that will fill every available part of the great court room on this momentous and historical occasion. The firey Philpott, with his ready wit and whithering sarcasm, has many admirers, whose expectations will not be disappointed.
Lambertson, with a vocabulary rich in resources, polished and ornate, supplemented with an imagination peopled with beautiful imagery, will make a powerful appeal to the inner sensibilities, while Frank Hall, quick at repartee, keen as a flashing scimetar and restlessly aggressive, will electrify the audience with impassioned appeals to the goddess of reason and justice. The intense earnestness of his manner--a gift of rare value in the forum--carries conviction with it, and his appeal to the jury cannot be other than a powerful one.
Mr. Strode will doubtless become excited, but that he is a ready and logical speaker, and an attorney of great erudition none will deny who have listened to him during the progress of the trial. With his associates he has made an able defense, and if successful no one will begrudge them the hard earned victory and the renown that will necessarily attach to the triumph.
The state, on the other hand has conducted a brilliant prosecution, has worked almost night and day, and is more than reasonably expectant of securing a conviction.
Yesterday Afternoon.
At Hosman followed his wife on the stand: He declared that he saw the man who fired fall down and roll over, and he could see that he was a white man, with a moustache and a beared about two or tree days old. The man were a faded brown overcoat.
Mrs. Maggie Hurts was called: She testified that she lived near the Sheedy residence; the lights were very bright on the night that Sheedy was assaulted.; she and her husband passed by; she saw Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy reading in the parlo' she saw them again in the same situation when she returned between 7 and 8 p. m., and a few minutes before the assault.
Mr. Hertz, the husband of the preceding witness, testified the same as his wife.
Mrs. White, who lives just east of the Sheedy residence, was put on the stand She testified that she had never seen any colored man hanging around the Sheedy residence.
Mrs. Davis, a milliner, swore that she had often seen Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy out walking and driving, and they appeared to enjoy each other's company.
At this juncture Hall asked:
"How often have you seen Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy laughing and talking while out driving?"
The witness replied:
"Only a few times"
Then Mr. Strode asked the witness if she hadn't often seen Mr. Hall, one of the counsel for the state, out walking and driving a number of times with his wife. The answer was in the affirmative. Then Mr. Strode asked:
"How often have you seen Mr. and Mrs. Hall laughing and talking while out driving?"
The witness answered:
"Not once."
A roar of laughter followed.
Miss Josie Dowden, sister of the preceding witness, corroborated in every way her sister's testimony.
Ex Marshal Melick was the next witness. He testified that he saw Mrs. Sheedy every day from the time of the assault to the time of her arrest on week afterwards, and she invariably evinced great grief whenever the death of Sheedy was referred to.
The trial ended for the day by the defense showing that the probate court had made an allowance for Mrs. Sheedy of $1,000, and that the heirs of John Sheedy had appealed the same and the appeal was now pending.
This Morning
L. C. Burr called and testified: I am a practicing attorney, and had a talk with Hyman Goldwater about the identification of the cane alleged to have been used in the assault upon Sheedy; Goldwater said Jim Malone had offered $500 to identify the cane; he afterward said the sum was $250; my recollection is that Goldwater first said Malone had offered $250; he also claimed that this sum was afterward raised to $300, and later at a conference between himself, Marshal Melick and Mayor Graham the offer had been raised to $500, which proposition he accepted, having, as he claimed, declined the $200 and $300 offers; Goldwater wanted to know if he could bring suit to recover the money and I told him he could; Goldwater did say they had agreed to pay the money to him, though he did say something about the bag.
Capt. Carder called: I have been on the police for twenty-three months. Was about police headquarters the night after the assault upon Sheedy and saw the cane claimed to have been used in striking him; the cane is all the right except that it looks as though the top had been changed since being first take to headquarters; recognized the cane as one that once belonged to me, but which I left at the station one night, I forgot the cane’and it was lost; got a better one and did not make much inquiry about it; It had been laying around headquarters from June until September, 1889, were other officers at the station who recognized it as my cane.
Carder having concluded his examination in chief, was turned over to counsel Frank Hall, for the prosecution. The earnest and energetic bearing of Mr. Hall suggested a grim determination to go thoroughly into details and to [?] witness’ evidence to the very dregs. This, associated with the near presence of Detective
[section folded and distorts lines. I can’t figure out which lines go together]
visibly annoyed Carder.He [?]ifted about [?]neasily in his chair, and gave premonition of the muttered protest that followed.
Turning to him Counsel Hall asked:
“Now, Mr. Carder, you say this cane—”
“I ain’t going to answer until Melick and Malone are removed from the room. I have not been present at the trial and they have, I have not been present at the trial and they have, I want a fair shake in this matter—”
“I’ll ask you the question again,” interrupted Mr. Hall, “and see whether or not you’ll answer.”
“Well, I’ll not.”
“I think you will,” retorted Hall, directing his attention to the court.
“Answer the question,” interposed Strode, “appealing to witness. “That’s my advice”
“I’ll not,” sullenly replied Carder.
“Yes you will,” responded the court, “or take the consequences.”
When the cane was first shown you at police headquarters, did this brass tack enable you to identify it?
The witness still persisted in refusing to answer, and the court warned him. that he would punish him severely unless he answered.
The question was again read and he answered:
“No, sir.”
“Did your cane have a brass tack?”
“Yes, I put one there myself.”
Where was the brass tack located?
“In the side of the cane. It has been changed since I last saw it.”
Will you swear, conceding this to be the same cane shown you at police headquarters, that it was the one you formerly owned.
“I think so.”
“Have you seen your cane since putting it away in police headquarters?”
“Yes; I think three or four times; can’t swear positively that it is the cane, but will say I never saw two canes resemble one another so much; the cane was made at the penitentiary.”
“The head was glued on when I first got it; knocked it off signaling on a telegraph pole for an officer at night.”
“Now, you say you thought this was your cane when it was first shown you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Did you not change your opinion later?”
“No, sir.”
“Did you not tell Henry Hoagland at the Capital hotel that you did not believe it was your cane?”
Witness vainly tried to evade a direct answer to the question, but finally with great reluctance, answered that he did not.
“I may have told Mr. Hoagland that it was a bare possibility that the cane was not mine; also told you (Counsel Hall) that I would not positively swear to the cane.”
“Did you not, in police headquarters, in the presence of Mr. Hogan and another man from the penitentiary, say that the cane was not yours?”
“I may have said something of that kind; when I last saw my cane it was straight and not bent al all.” Excused.
Wm. Barnes, called: I was jailor at police headquarters; knew Carder; he was captain and later sergeant; I remember when Sheedy was assaulted; I recall when McFarland was arrested; I was at the jail when the cane said to have been picked up at the Sheedy residence; it was brough there that night, but I did not see it until the next day. I recognized it as the one belonging to Captain Carder; I never saw but once the cane while Carder owned it; this was in 1889.
Cross-examination—Had seen it only once before it was brought into the station the night after the assault upon Sheedy; there were two scollops on Carder’s cane; I can’t tell how I came to take notice of the scollops; don’t recollect whether there were any tacks in the cane or not; can’t tell if the head was glued on or tacked on.
Witness was shown the cane and instead of finding only two scollops he swore to on the cane he found a half doezen or more; he could not assign any specific reason for recognizing the cane; he had not noticed any brass tacks when brought to the station that night; the cane was shown the jury and a dozen scollops or indentations were found.
Philpott humorously charged that counsel for the state had “cut scollops” with the cane.
“No,” replied Hall, “it was Monday McFarland who cut scollops with it.”
Philpott excitedly—“Put that in the record. Put it in that Hall charges this to Monday McFarland.”
Carder recalled:
“Do you know Mr. Alexander, a reporter for the Journal,” asked Counsel Hall.
“Yes.”
“Did you not tell Mr. Alexander that the Journal was mistaken about having published the statement that the cane was yours?”
“I never had any conversation with Alexander about that cane, though I may have talked to him in a general way about it.” Excused.
Miss Frannie Warner called: Am acquainted with Mrs. Sheedy; knew Sheedy and frequently visited their house; saw Mrs. Sheedy after her return from Buffalo; they seemed very attentive to one another. There was no difference in their behavior toward each other after her return from Buffalo;visited the house after Sheedy was hurt.
Witness portrayed a scene of sorrow and pathos that would have brought tears to the calloused optics of a wooden Indian. She said the grief of Mrs. Sheedy was so violent that her sobs shook the bed and presumably rattled the china in the remote closet.
Mrs. S. M. Melick called: I was at Sheedy’s residence after the assault; it was on Wednesday evening; observed Mrs. Sheedy deportment; part of the time she was crying; the mention of her husband’s name appeared to make her weep, but would regain her composure and become calm.
As Mrs. Melick passed from the stand to the seat reserved for her in the rear of where Mrs. Sheedy sat, the [?] prisoner smiled one of her most captivating smiles and gently nodded her thanks.
The supply of witness present for the defense having become exhausted, Judge Strode, at the request of Colonel Strode and Philpott, adjourned court until 3 o’clock in order that they might occupy the interim in rounding up another batch.
This Afternoon.
E. H. Andrus; called: Live in Lincoln and own Cushman Park; was acquainted with John Sheedy and wife; saw them at the park several times; their deportment was very kind to each other.
W. W. Carder, recalled.
Question by Hall.
“Do you remember saying to F. A. Miller and George F. Sipe at police headquarters when the cane was there for identification that you at first recognized the cane as yours, but afterward became satisfied that it was not?”
“Don’t remember saying that.” Excused.
F. B. Baker called: Am a farmer; my wife is a sister of Mrs. Sheedy; was at Sheedy’s the day after the funeral; recollect about a young man coming there with a power of attorney; there were a number of others there; recall Dr. Hook being called that morning to see Mrs. Sheedy; she was ill that day; the two Sheedy brothers and Mr. Oppenheimer had just sat down to the table and Walstrom was not there that forenoon; had never seen Walstrom until afterward.
Cross examination.—Left the house at 11:57; train left at 12:03; Walstrom was a small man; can’t tell the color of his hair and eyes; would say he was about 25 years of age; saw Mr. Oppenheimer when he came to the house; I was in the parlor and Mrs. Sheedy was in the sitting room lying on the sofa; I went out to order a hack and was not gone from the house more than fifteen minutes during the entire morning. I think the piano was closed. Excused.
Mrs. Dean, sister of Mrs. Sheedy, called.
This lady corroborated the testimony of Mr. Baker with reference to the call of Oppenheimer.
Counsel Frank Hall assumed a most solemn and earnest mein, and slowly questioned Mrs. Dean upon every detail of the visit of Walstrom to the house.
Her answers were framed cautiously, as though deeply conscious of treading upon dangerous ground. However, she maintained a constrained composure, and by effort held up during the trying ordeal to which she was subjected. Mr. Hall had carefully posted himself upon the details of that momentous meeting of Sneedy and Walstrom, and frequently refreshed her memory relative to occurences which transpired at that meeting. She denied that Mr. Sheedy sent for Walstrom and also denied that Sheedy told Walstrom he (Sheedy) did not want to see him.
--------------------- SATURDAY ---------- The preliminary examination of E. W. Hutchinson chared with murder, was continued until Friday morning. --------------------- District Court [Cullings?].
In thh case of Mary A. Mathews vs. Edward Mathews, the latter filed his answer today. He relates a sad story of deception. He says that along about December 1, 1888, he first became acquainted with plaintiff, who was living at 2801 N street. She had two children by her first husband Miller, and he had two bp his wife from whom he was living apart, and fro whom he secured a divorce soon afterwards. He boarded with Mrs. Miller until January 15, 1889, when he left the city. Nevertheless they were in continual correspondence, and by means of which they became engaged. He says plaintiff represented herself as being a virtuous and chaste woman, which wasn’t true, and if he had known it he wouldn’t have married her on September 2, 1889. He also believes and states that she did this to mislead him and induce him to marry her. He also says she hit him with a billet of wood, displayed a vicious temper and used very sulphurous and indecent language. Furthermore that during their wedded life until she deserted him March 18, 1891, she treated him coldly, and refused to allow him to love her. Therefore he asks for the divorce.
Wm. Barr asks the court to dismiss the action for $10,000 for seduction by Hattie Nims, on the ground that she has not obeyed the order of the court to submit to an examination.
In the case of McConnell vs. Meyer, which has occupied the greater part of the week in Judge Hall’s court, the judge this morning handed down his decree finding that there was no equity in plaintiff’s petition, and making the specific finding that when Meyer purchased the stock at sheriff’s sale he did so without any agreement to hold the same for the interest or use of McConnell.
When the divorce case of Ella J. Oatley vs. Simeon E. Oatley was called in Judge Tibbett’s court this morning, Simeon was legally in default, but he was there in person. He asked for time to get a lawyer, but they were evidently scarce, as after a five minute search he reported no success. He asked to appear in his own behalf, and at the first question leveled at his wife he shouted “I object.” He was quieted down, and the trial proceeded. Mrs. Oatley works for Mrs. L[?]n. Holmes, and the testimony, which included Judge Field’s, showed that she was a hard-working woman, and Oatley had failed to support, being drunk the greater part of the time. In his own behalf Oatley denied drinking, although he was pretty well loaded at the time, but said he was sick two thirds of the time. The woman was given a divorce and custody of children. --------------------- Arguments to Begin Monday.
When the long hands on the dial face of the clock in Judge Field’s court room centered across the figures XII in a neck and neck race, at noon today, the official announcement was made from the bench that so far as the hearing of evidence is concerned, the trial of Mary Sheedy and, Monday McFarland for the killing of John Sheedy on the evening of January 11 last, was closed and all admissible testimony in. It only remains now for the court to give its instructions and attorneys to complete their arguments, when the final arbiters, the jurors, will retire to sift the evidence and wrestle for a verdict. Just what their findings, relative to Mrs. Sheedy, will be, admits of a wide range of speculation, which it is idle and useless to attempt to solve. The fact that she is a woman in distress may appeal powerfully to the jury, as it would to any American imbued within Americans sense of sympathy when a penalty so severe attaches to guilt. Time will disclose that which now lies concealed beyond human scruting in the womb of the future.
The defense has been ably conducted and based upon its ability to prove that two white men, instead of a single colored man were concerned in the fatal assault upon John Sheedy, and that Mrs. Sheedy was in no manner connected with the, crime. The defense introduced a number of witnesses to prove that two men were seen running south on O street immediately after the shots were fired by Sheedy, but though an incident of this character occurring at such time would be pregnant with significance, and challenge the close attention of the least observing, it is noticeable that none of these witnesses were enabled to give any plausible description of the alleged fleeing man. Unfortunately for this theory so vital to the defense, these men, in leaving the Sheedy premises and running up O street at the time, would have claimed the attention of three police officers, two of whom were on the corner of O and Twelfth when the shots were first heard, and who ran down Twelfth to the alley, and thence down the alley, and a moment later to the Sheedy residence. The blacksmith who was standing on the opera house corner waiting for a car, and who followed the officers and remained near the alley for ten minutes afterward would have seen these men, but he did not.
The prosecution pretty effectually exploded this hypothesis of the defense, not alone by submitting negative testimony from disinterested witnesses, but by showing where Williams and Gleason, who is was intimated were the two men, were at the time of the assault upon Sheedy. The testimony brought out in rebuttal of the evidence of Hitchcock and Curry that they saw two men running away from the alley, leaves but little doubt that the alleged men were creations of the imagination and had no existence in fact. Further, the statement of the two boys that that the patrol wagon was at Sheedy’s that night is disproved by the evidence of the driver of the wagon and the police records as kept by Capt. Carder, whose entry upon the book that night proves the patrol wagon was not taken out.
The prosecution appears to have completely fortified itself upon this point, evidence it looks as though the proposition of the defense had been completely annihilated.
The court room was crowded this morning with a mixed audience of men and women, who had gathered in the hope of seeing or hearing some hoped for denouement in the closing hours of the great trial. In this they were doomed to disappointment, as nothing of an unusual character transpired.
Mrs. Sheedy and her relatives, flanked by a number of lady friends, occupied the chairs reserved for them in front of the bar. Several times Mrs. Morgan lapsed into tears and silently wept behind the folds of her delicate lace handkerchief, but as for Mrs. Sheedy she maintained an attitude of stolid composure and an expression of contemptuous indifference or dreamy contemplation. With eyes sometimes closed as though in repose and at others half shut she gazed languidly at the floor suggesting that her mind was far removed from the surrounding drama in which she was the centre figure.
Her bearing betrayed neither fear of impending peril nor half conscious hope of ultimate acquittal, but rather that of dreamy unconcern. She possesses either an iron nerve or is calloused beyond the bounds of human credulity.
The anxiety in her behalf, manifested by her sisters on several occasions, apparently does not harass her mind and seems to find no place in her thoughts which appear to wander in silent contemplation on the remote frontiers of other climes.
Monday McFarland, her alleged accomplice, for the first time, evidenced emotion this morning as he sat in his accustomed place holding a bright looking child in his arms. The eyes of the little chick roamed over the room in childish inquiry and wonder in a vain endeavor to solve the meaning of the impressive scenes around it. Noticing this, the dusky father, touched by the pathos of the situation, bowed his head and wept. His wife, a quite refined appearing woman with an attractive, intelligent face, and quite modestly, but tastily attired, occupied a seat to his left, but considerably in the rear. The emotion of McFarland escaped her attention, which was attracted in another direction at the time. This was her first visit to the court house since the trial began, being compelled, owing to the loss of her husband’s services, to maintain herself and child by hard work as a servant.
The defense confined itself this morning to submitting evidence calculated to discredit suspicion that Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy lived together in any other than the most affectionate mutual harmony, and the create the impression that Sheedy was murdered by two gamblers and not by Monday McFarland.
Yesterday Afternoon.
Hayman Goldwater and L. C. Burr were called yesterday afternoon to discredit the assertions of each other, and both succeeded. Goldwater denied telling Burr that he had fixed the head of the cane and impliedly stating that he did not have the cane in the store. Burr emphatically swore he did say so.
P. J. Stepney, a cousin of McFarland, was put on the stand to identify a cane mutilated so as to appear like the one used, and he prompted identified it. Attorneys Philpott and Strode also took the stand to contradict Detective Malone’s denial of having had certain conversations with the attorneys while prowling round the jail waiting for a chance to see Monday.
Marshal Melick was put on the stand and asked what reward was offered for the arrest and conviction of the murderers. Witness testified that a reward of $1000 had been offered by Dennis Sheedy and Mrs. Sheedy for the arrest of the murderers. Later Mrs. Sheedy withdrew her offer. Witness continued: “Mr. Dennis Sheedy then offered $1000 reward; I told Jim Malone of this; this reward was offered to me privately; I offered James Malone one-half of this in case of conviction; the second offer of reward was made after Mrs. Sheedy’s arrest.”
Coroner Holyoke was put on the witness stand and produced the cheek bone of John Sheedy. He testified that at the time of the autopsy the cheek bone was broken only at its point of articulation with the forehead; the bone had to be pried out. He testified further that he took charge of the stomach and later sent it to Prof. Vaugh of Ann Arbbor; Dennis Sheedy offered $200 to pay toward the expense of the analysis of the stomach; Dennis Sheedy said that the county offered only $30; the stomach was put in a sealed jar in the back part of Brown’s drug store; almost anybody could have gotten at the jar.
The defense rested, and the state called Geo. Bradeen and Anson Fullington to prove that Gleason and Williams, had been in the gambling rooms above the Ivy Leaf saloon from 7 until 8:30 p. m. the night of the assault and the first intimation had of the assault on Sheedy was when Ab. Carder came up and announced it. Gleason and Williams are the men whom an endeavor was made to implicate.
Charles D. Alexander, police reporter on the Journal, testified that Captain Carder stated to him that he was unable to identify the cane.
Strode then asked: “Haven’t you taken a deep interest in this trial.”
“I have taken a deep interest in this case only as a newspaper reporter,” was Alexander’s reply.
In reply to another question Alexander testified:
“Carder asked me not to say anything in the paper about his not being able to identify the cane.”
Deputy Sheriff Hoagland was recalled, and testified positively that Captain Carder tld him at the Capital hotel in the presence of John B. Wright that he was not sure that the cane was his.
Sergeant Fred Miller testified that on the day following the time that the cane was found on the porch of the Sheedy residence, Captain Carder informed witness that he couldn’t identify the cane as his own.
Mr. Lambertson, attorney for the state, then offered an almanac in evidence to show that there was no moon on the night that McFarland shot at John Sheedy, but in the face of which Mr. and Mrs. Hosman, who were thirty-five feet away, claimed that it was a white man who did the shooting.
Strode objected because there was no evidence to show it was a scientific work, but it went it, and the court adjourned.
This Morning.
D. G. Courtnay recalled—John Sheedy was in my office two or three days before his death. He gave me a letter to read.
“You may state if that letter did not contain a threat that he was assaulted”.
Ruled out.
I gave the letter back to Sheedy and have never seen it since; I have been through his papers, and looked especially for that letter, but could not find it; also looked through his safe, room and bureau, but it could not be found. He called to converse about the letter and I read it. The writing was disguised and there was no signature. Sheedy told me that he had shown it to his wife. The letter was to the effect that unless he let up and ceased trying to run the town in his own interest and to the detriment of the other gamblers it would be only a question of time before he was killed. This letter was shown me after Sheedy had been shot at; I told Col. Biggerstaff and Counsel Strode about this matter several days ago.
Cross-examined—The letter was written in a man’s hand and disguised; I do not think it was signed at all, and am certain it was not signed by “A Friend to Your Wife.” I only surmised the writing was disguised, as it looked strained and not natural; I think Malone and Carder know about that letter, as they were in the confidence of Sheedy.
Re-direct—The letters written by Mrs. Sheedy to her husband from Buffalo were burned by Mrs. Sheedy. Sheedy read these letters at my house and cried like a child.
Officer Kinney called in rebuttal: I was on corner of Twelfth and O at the time Sheedy was assaulted; Officer Otto was with me; I did not see anybody running south on Twelfth street after the shooting; I was in a position where I could have seen them had they been running down the street; I ran north on Twelfth, going possibly a few feet beyond the alley; we met Henry Krouse running toward us; he turned and ran down the alley; if we had seen any men running we would have been pretty apt to have stopped them; I don’t think we all went clear through the alley; I did, but don’t think Otto and Adams did.
The defense tried hard to get the court clear.
D. C. Tapping called: Blacksmith by trade; on the night John Sheedy was assaulted I was on the corner of Twelfth and O waiting for a car; when I heard the shot fired I walked diagonally across the street and went to the curbing opposite the Sheedy residence; did not see two men running up Twelfth street, one thing certain, there could not have been or I would certainly have seen them; saw two policemen run toward the house and afterwards go into the alley. The reason I spoke about my having been in the vicinity on the evening of the assault, was because I had been told yesterday that two boys had claimed to have been there and saw two men running away from the Sheedy residence: don’t think this was true and I told my story, and was called as a witness.
Officer Otto: Was on corner of Twelfth and O when the shots were fired; Officer Kinney was with me; we ran just past the saloon on the corner of the alley when we met Special Officer Krouse; we turned and started down the alley; I did not go more than ten feet into the alley and stayed there until Kinney and Adams, the latter of whom had joined us, returned to Twelfth street; did not see any men run, out of the alley or climb over the back fence.
Mrs. Margaret Skinner called: Live on P and O street; my rooms are located in rear of the block. Have lived there since last August; I was in my rooms the evening of the assault upon Mr. Sheedy; when I heard the shots fired that evening I ran out into the hall, raised the window and looked out.
Strode and Stearns violently opposed the admission of Mrs. Skinner, because it was alleged by counsel for state that she would testify that instead of seeing two men running up Twelfth street she saw a negro fleeing through the alley, followed at some distance by two officers.
This set Strode, Stearns and Woodward wild, and they were all on their feet at once howling for the court to come to the rescue and help them let loose of the bear. The court kindly did so, and the testimony of Mrs. Skinner was excluded because her name had not been endorsed on the back of the information at the proper time.
Ex-Mayor Graham called: There was no arrangements ever made between Hyman Goldwater, Mr. Malone, Mr. Melick and myself that the former was to receive any consideration for identifying the cane said to have been used in the assault upon Sheedy. There never was any such conference nor was any reward offered to any one to identify the cane. This testimony was corroborated by Marshal Melick, who denied any knowledge of offering a reward for the identification of the cane.
Bob Malone called: Was patrol drive in January last; the patrol wagon was not at Sheedy’s residence that night; if the wagon had been taken out I would have known it.
W. W. Carder called: If the patrol wagon was out the record will show it.
Counsel Hall handing record to witness:
“Look at this record and see if iit shows the patrol wagon was the Sheedy residence that night.”
“The patrol wagon did not go to Sheedy’s that night.”
Mr. Hall then announced that the state rested.
The court then stated that case was to be regarded as definitely closed so far as the taking of evidence was concerned, and announced that he would probably be ready to give instructions to the jury Monday, though this would not be done unless counsel insisted.
It was then agreed to postpone argument until Monday, when Mr. Snell will open for the prosecution. --------------------- Why will you cough when Shiloh’s Cure will give immediate relief. Price 10c., 50c. and $1. Solf by Henry H. Barth, 929 O street.
---------------------
C. W. Kaley, Auctioneer, 1524 O St. ---------------------
Shiloh’s Catarrh Remedy—a positive cure for catarrh, diptheria and cankermouth. Sold by Henry H, Barth, 929 O street.
---------------------
ATTENTION
EVERYBODY.
The Enterprise Commission company 1308 O street, will sell at public auction each and every evening hereafter, until further notice.
We will sell to the highest and best bidder, solid gold, filled cases and silver watches, furniture, crockery, lace curtains, and in fact EVERYTHING.
These are consigned goods and must be sold or returned within the next ten days.
Call and examine these goods, as we have the best makes, and direct from the factories.
We will sell Rogers Bros. silverware, Elgin and Waltham watches, and [abon?] 100 clocks that will be sold regardless of cost to manufacture.
Goods fresh from the factories constantly arriving.
THE ENTERPRISE
COMMISSION CO.
---------------------
Notice Probate of Will,
In county court, Lancaster county, Nebraska, notice probate of will of George Lohstroh, deceased.
The State of Nebraska to the heirs and next of kind of the said George Lostroh deceased:
Take notice that upon filing of a written instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of George Lohstroh for probate and allowance, it is ordered that said matter be set for hearing the 19th day of June, A. D., 1891, before said county court,at the county court room in the court house in Lincoln, Lancaster county, Nebraska, at the hour of 1 o’clock p. m., at which time any person interested may appear and contest the same; and notice of this proceeding is ordered ;published three weeks successively in the LINCOLN WEEKLY NEWS, a weekly newspaper; published in this state.
In testimony where of, I have hereunto set my hand the seal of the county court at Lincoln, Nebraska, this 18th day of May, A. D., 1891. W. H. STEWART,
County Judge.
SEAL.
174
LOCAL NEWS.
THURSDAY
Governor Thayer will hear the petition for commutation of the sentences of First and Shepherd on Thursday, May 28.
B. R. Cowdry, ex-secretary of the state, was today appointed bank examiner in the place of A. P. Brink, who resigned to take the cashiership of a South Omaha bank. W. T. Garber, recently appointed, is an additional examiner to the original number of three, and the banking board is considering the appointment of a fifth.
Dr. Conway of Omaha was fired from the state electric medical society yesterday at Omaha because he had violated the ethics of the profession by extensive advertising. The offending doctor acknowledged that if it was a crime to advertise one's business, he was guilty. He unmercifully scored the doctors "who ran around after a reporter to get a personal, while he rode up in his cushioned carriage to the business office, and paid for his advertising like a little man."
The Defense Has Its Innings.
This morning the defense introduced two young men named Hitchcock and Curry upon the stand to prove that immediately following the shots fired by Sheedy, upon the evening of the assault, they saw two men running up Twelfth street from the vicinity of the Sheedy residence. They had evidently rehearsed the narrative they told on the stand, but not a sufficient number of times to agree, and under the severe cross examination of Counsel Hall, their transparent declarations were torn to tatters. They could give no reasonable description of the alleged fleeing men and were unable to tell where they went or what became of them after reaching the opera house, where it was claimed that they suddenly and very mysteriously disappeared.
Both of these young men hung their heads and kept their eyes fixed almost constantly upon the floor while giving their testimony, and their general bearing created anything but a favorable impression upon the spectators, and presumably upon the jury.
In addition to these "young men the defense dug up three or four willing witnesses, whose blas in favor of Mrs. Sheedy was made manifest by their eagerness to venture opinions favorable to her.
Yesterday Afternoon.
The most important witness of the state was the last one called. It was Mrs. P. H. Swift, who had by mistake been endorsed as P. H. Smith on the information. She was a most unwilling witness, and it leaked out that Attorney Strode had been talking to her about hte case, and trying to work on her friendship for Mrs. Sheedy. The effect of this conversation was very apparent on the witness, and it was with the greatest difficulty that an answer could be gotten out of her. In fact fot the first quarter of an hour she carefully avoided saying anything at all. Finally the court got disgusted and allowed Mr. Lambertson to ask the witness leading questions. Even then the witness attempted evasion, but finally some startling things were revealed by her.
Mrs. Sheedy looked intensely interested, and as usual with her, moved close up to the witness, and prompted her attorney in cross-examination. The witness testified:
"I was in the habit of visiting Mrs. Sheedy some five or six months before Mr. Sheedy died; she did not speak of him well as a wife should who loved her husband; she said he was so jealous of her and would not let her do as she wished; she told me last November that he had threatened to kill her with a revolver; she told me this was the result of a quarrel over a relative; when she complained to me I laughed and told her that I had heard that she had lost a ring and that her husband had got angry and charged her with having given it away; she said that this was not what she referred to; at another time she said she had the clues awful bad because Mr. Sheedy was so jealous of her she couldn't enjoy herself at all; I said to her you do not know how well fixed you are; you have everything you wish; she said: 'Give me a laboring man who gets his wages every day instead of a man like Sheedy.'"
Mr. Lambertson asked the witness at this juncture what Mrs. Sheedy had said in regard to bearing children.
Mrs. Sheedy's eyes twinkled maliciously at this and she flashed a threatening look at the witness. Nevertheless Mrs. Swift continued:
"She told me once that she would give anything if she told me she was enclente and didn't intend to have it. She told me afterwards that she used something to get rid of having the child, and at the time was all right. She said that her reason for doing so was because her husband was mean to her at that time. She told me that she had fixed to leave him at one time. This was along in the first of November. One day when I went to the Sheedy residence I had some trouble in Sheedy residence I had some trouble in bringing anybody to the door. Finally the servant girl came and I asked to see Mrs. Sheedy. After she came out of bed room; but returned there shortly afterward."
The inference drawn by the audience was that McFarland was in the room, but this was not brought out by the prosecution, the witness being usable to see in the room.
Witness said: "Was there one the day Mr. Sheedy died. She told me that Mr. Sheedy could not live; I told her that hot water and mustard plasters would help him. She said that it was useless to give him anything.
There was fun when the cross-examination began, Mrs. Sheedy prompted Mr. Strode as to what questions to ask, the intention being to make it appear that the witness and Sheedy were particular friends. The first question fired at the witness was:
"What was your name when you lived at York?"
"Miss Lucy Bell," was the reply.
"What was it at Plattsmouth?"
"Mrs. Johnston, I went there to live after I was married.
"What is your name now?"
[?]
"Where you divorced from Johnson?"
"No sir."
Strode then jumped up and demanded:
"Why weren't you?"
"Mr. Johnson died," was the quiet reply.
Strode looked annoyed, the crowd laughed and Mrs. Sheedy bent forward and whispered something again to Strode's ear. The attorney thundered out:
"How many times did you drink wine and beer with Mr. Sheedy?"
"Only once" was the reply, "and Mrs. Sheedy was present. Every time I went to Sheedy's however, Mrs. Sheedy offered me wine."
"How many times did Mr. Sheedy take you home?"
"Only once alone. At all other times Mrs. Sheedy went along."
"Didn't sheedy send you a present on Christmas?"
"No, sir. Mrs. SHeedy made a present to me Christmas of three pairs of stockings. If they were from Sheedy, I did not know it."
Lambertson then asked the witness concerning what Strode said to her at noon. She replied:
"Strode said, 'I thought you were a friend of Mrs. Sheedy's.' He said that the evidence I would give was very important and was the only one that would convict her. While Mrs. Sheedy was away Mrs. Dean kept house for Sheedy. Strode insisted that I should tell him all I knew of the case, and I did so."
Just before adjournment Mr. Hall, counsel for the prosecution, as foreshadowed by the News yesterday, arose and stated that an examination had been made of the stomach and bladder, but no traces of morphine were found by the experts, Mr. Hall, however, offered a number of standard medical works in evidence to prove that too long a time had elapsed for any morphine to be found in those organs.
The things that Strode said to her to prejudice her for the defense were detailed at length. Witness further testified that Mrs. Sheedy said to her shortly before the assault:
"Someone is after Mr. Sheedy who will kill him and they will get him yet."
The appraisement of the property of John Sheedy at $57,483.30 was next offered in evidence.
This Morning.
Lew Franklin called: Was a friend of Sheedy; saw Mrs. SHeedy, shook hands, and she said that she did not think Sheedy would recover, but hoped he would; tried to arouse him by calling him dear and other tender names, I stayed there about ten minutes; I was at Sheedy's house when Sheedy was stabbed, and thought that Mrs. Sheedy showed a great solicitude for his appearance, and wished to take care of him herself as she thought she could attend him and prevent the wound leaving a scar; do not remember how long he was sick, but I was there four or five times; I called on him simply because he was a friend of mine; I generally called on him on Sunday morning about 9 o'clock; have visited him frequently during the last six or eight years; last visit to Mr. Sheedy before his death was about the time of, or before, the state fair, during the races; saw Mrs. Sheedy at that time; this time I did not call on Sunday, but during the week, and it was about three or four o'clock in the afternoon; John was not there at this visit; I called to tell Mrs. Sheedy that Sheedy was a winner, as Sheedy had told me that if he won the race he would give his winnings to his wife. This was in the month of June, 1900, I think; It was not during the race at the state fair; think it was during the fair that I called at Sheedy's house. I regarded Sheedy as a stout, nale and rugged man. Excused.
Wilmer Mayes called. Have lived in Lincoln about seven years, and knew John Sheedy well.. I remember the evening that the assault was made upon Sheedy. I was standing at the stove in the hotel; heard a shot fired and ran out to see what occasioned the shooting; saw a man run out the back way and disappear toward the alley; one of the men would weigh about 190 pounds.
Cross examined - One of the men I saw might have been a policeman; could not tell the color of either of the men I saw.
A Hitchcock called: Live at corner of Fifteenth and Vine; have resided here about seventeen years; the night of the assault upon Sheedy myself and another young man were standing on Thirteenth street; heard the shooting and started up O street. We saw two men run up the alley back on the opera house running up Twelfth street. They were running rapidly I cannot state whether or not the fleeing men wore overcoats. Myself and companion went down to the Sheedy residence.
Cross examination - I am 19 years of age, and drive team; started from home, at Fifteenth and Vine, for church; went to Red Ribbon hall, but before entering the door we decided not to attend the meeting, and concluded to go to the Methodist church, but lingered around the Sheedy residence so long that we arrived too late to attend services, the audience have been dismissed before we got there; told attorneys for the defense of what I know about these men for the first time this morning.
The evidence of this witness was given with eyes case on the floor and is a low monotone that rendered it quite difficult to understand him.
Geo. Corry - Am 17 years of age and live at the corner of Twelfth and T streets; I was at the Sheedy residence the evening of the assault upon John SHeedy; I saw two men running away from the housel they were in the middle of the street, and running as fast as they could; they ran southwest and disappeared passing the opera house stairs.
Cross-examination - There were no policemen there when we arrived; we walked right inside the yard and looked into the parlor; saw a man and some things inside; the patrol wagon drove up about a minute after we arrived; think I saw Officer Malone; Corry swore with great positiveness that church, was not over when they arrived at the church office, but that the audience was still attendance upon the services, while Hitchcock, who had just preceded him upon the stand swore that equal positiveness that when they arrived the congregation had been dismissed and was leaving the church.
Clara Hatch called: Reside northeast corner of Eleventh and p. Knew Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy well and visited their residence quite often. Have known them about nine years, I was there about four weeks before the assault upon him. My opinion was that they always thought a great deal of one another. They appeared affectionate. I was at the house about 8 o'clock the evening Sheedy was hit, while I was there she was kneeling at the bed side. Her right arm was under the pillow upon which his head rested, and with the other she caressed his face, and called in ones of agonizing distress "John! Can't you speak to me. Don't you know me!" Her eyes were filled with tears and she wept perceptibly. Her manner implied that she was heartbroken.
Cross-examination - I am the wife of Dory Batch; cannot say whether or not my husband has been assisting Mrs. Sheedy in making a defense in this case; became acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy nine years ago, and we have been more or less intimate ever since; the afternoon preceding the assault upon Sheedy I called at the house and remained about an hour; Mrs. Sheedy did not tell me why she went to Buffalo always thought Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy lived happily together; can't explain why he neglected to meet Mrs. Sheedy at the train upon her return from Buffalo; thought this singular, because Sheedy called at our house the day before and expressed pleasure at her prospective return the next day.
C. C. Carpenter called: 'Knew Sheedy and was at his house the evening he was assaulted; was there several times; Mrs. Sheedy was flying around attending to her husband and supplying the doctors with water, towels, etc; I was in the house until about 11 o'clock; she was weeping and acting about as any woman would under the circumstances; she had her handkerchief to her eyes and wept copiously; I was there after Sheedy's death; Mrs. Sheedy was apparently feeling worse that before his death; I attended the funeral; I did not see Mrs. Sheedy's face at the funeral, because she wore a heavy mourning veil; saw her after the funeral and she was still weeping.
Cross examination - Have known Mrs. Sheedy about six years. I was at the house about 4 o'clock when he died. Have always been friendly to the Sheedys. I have performed errands for Mrs. Sheedy.
"What was the character of these errands?" Objected to and ruled out.
"Did you ever make a remark in your saloon soon after the assault upon Sheedy, that you had been expecting something of that kind for sometime."
"I don't recollect having made any such remark and don't think I did."
A. W. Carder called and testified: Knew Sheedy for sixteen years, and was in his employ previous to his death for the purpose of watching a couple of men whom he suspected of lying for him.
Adjourned for dinner.
This Afternoon.
When court had convened after dinner Counsel Hall, in a clean cut and logical argument, presented his reason to the court to show why Carder should not be allowed to rehearse to the jury any conversation witness may have had with Sheedy relative to whom Sheedy suspected of having made the assault upon him. Mr. Hall maintained that had the blow not have resulted fatally and sheedy had have lived, he would not have been permitted to go upon the stand in any court and testify as to whom he suspected. If Sheedy could not have done this, Carder certainly could not.
The objection was overruled and Carder resumed the stand and testified as follows:
I saw Sheedy after he was hurt. I asked him whom he suspected. He said 'the big man of the two.' The big man he referred to was Gleason. The little man was Frank Williams. I had no further conversation with Sheedy that night. One of the men left for Denver a few weeks ago. The other is still in the city, and resides here. I saw Mrs. Sheedy that night. She said I would be well paid if I could find out who it was attacked John. I did not pay much attention to her manner. I stopped at the house the next morning; saw Mrs. Sheedy at the bedside of her husband; the priest was there; Mrs. Sheedy was on her knees, praying and manifesting great emotion; she appeared awful sorry about John;s condition; was employed three weeks before to watch Gleason and Williams, who he said he feared would slug him.
Counsel Frank Hall took Carder in hand, and created general mirth by abruptly putting in rapid succession the following questions:
"Did you watch?"
"I did."
"Did they kill him?"
"I don't know."
"Don't you know that both these men are now in the city?"
"No."
"How do you know Williams is in Denver!"
"I was told so by the gamblers."
"Did you not testify before the coroner's jury that Sheedy believed it was Williams who stuck him?"
"I did not say it positively. I said I could prove where Williams was that night."
"I do not know whether Williams or Gleason were at Sheedy's the evening he was struck. I have tried to find out."
"Now, Mr. Carder, will you swear that you did not tell Mrs. Sheedy the next day that you believed she had a hand in the killing of her husband?"
Excitedly, "No sir."
"Didn't you meet Will Baird in the back yard and tell him that you had accused Mrs. Sheedy of the murder of John SHeedy?"
Angirly, "No sir, I did not. I didn't meet Baird there and never said such a thing to him."
I never saw Gleason around Sheedy's residence; watched him over three weeks; saw Frank Williams coming out of Lindsey's saloon after leaving Sheedy's, I then began to look for Gleason, but did not find him; have not been looking for him ever since. Excused.
Mrs. Anna Hosman was summoned next, and testified: I knew John Sheedy by sight, and remember the assault; my husband and myself were near the Sheedy residence one night about 10 o'clock a month prior to the attack made upon Sheedy last February; while we were passing the Sheedy residence, I saw a rather small man, with a mustache raise up in the yard and fire a shot at Sheedy; he then ran away; I was about twenty feet away from him and as near as I could tell, he was a white man.
All About a Horse.
J. Westcott filed a suit in Judge Foxworthy's court yesterday afternoon in which he set forth that he was entitled to the immediate possession of a horse then in the possession of William and Al Frost, and he wanted his rights enforced. Constable Kaufman, armed with the
175
Monday Gone Visiting.
Monday McFarland, following his acquittal and release, took his departure for White Cloud, Kas, yesterday to visit his relatives who reside there. Probably there is not a more delighted human being in the country today than Monday, and possibly not another so thoroughly surprised as was he when the verdict was read. Just how long he will remain absent is not known, but it is not probable he will return for several weeks. Whether or not he will decide to remain permanently in Lincoln Monday has not decided, and it would not be surprising if he should make up his mind to pitch his tent in another state.