Gilded Age Newspaper Articles

GOT A THREATENING LETTER

____________________________

FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE ASSULT

____________________________

D. G. Courtnay Gives Some Important Testimony at a Remarkably Late Date.

____________________________

Mrs. Skinner Not Permitted to Tell of Having Seen Monday Going Through the Alley After Both Assaults of Sheedy.

_____________________________

No More Testimony to Go In.

The progress of the Sheedy case was remarkably dilatory during the half day session devoted to rebuttal yesterday, owing to the absence of witnesses extracted by the state, and the officers of the court receives several broadsides of criticism from Judge Field and the attorneys for not having the witness in readiness when called.

There was the inevitable crowd of spectators on attendance, eager to hear the last bits of conflicting testimony sifted to a definite conclusion. the accused, with their attendants and attorneys, were on hand promptly at the hour for opening. An air of exhaustion was perceptible on every hand. The three weeks of mental strain has left its tracks upon the features of all whose connection with the case has kept them in line with its progress, and it was apparent that all were apply qualified to profit from a day of rest.

Mrs. Sheedy, during the greater part of the long forenoon sat with her eyes closed, as if sleeping, while her sisters, Mrs. Morgan and Mrs. Dean, were quietly enjoying the mental relief that comes borne upon a tide of tears. Those three devoted sisters appear to have suffered much more poignantly from the events of the past three weeks than has the defendant who enjoys their tender, anxious sympathy, if one may accurately measure human anguish by outward appearances. Their deportment has undeniably operated very much to the advantage of the defense in this case.

Monday McFarland did not appear so utterly forsaken yesterday as during the former days of the trial. It is true that some of his colored friends and relatives have been near him in court every day ever since the taking of testimony began, but yesterday he sat in a semi-circle of ten colored ladies. Among them all the most tastefully and expensively attired was his wife, an intelligent looking colored woman of apparently about twenty-five years of age. She had brought with her their baby, and the child nestled down into its father's arms and maintained a mystical quietude throughout the forenoon. Once the swartly prisoner was noticed bending over it in tears. Monday and his coterie of friends sat nearer the jury than did Mrs. Sheedy, and the incident of the child's presence in court did not fail to make its impression upon everyone.

The chief testimony offered yesterday was certainly of a very important and interesting nature. Both sides had some ready, but only the defense was allowed to bring out any new facts. The testimony of Mrs. Skinner to the effect that she saw Monday McFarland pass through the alley just after both of the assaults at the Sheedy place, was not permitted to go before the jury.

Upon the opening of court Mr. Strode asked the court for leave to introduce some testimony of which he had just learned and desired to call D. G. Courtnay. Mr. Hall for the state protested somewhat against permitting the introduction of some evidence so long after the defense had rested its case, but the court concluded to permit it.

An Anonymous Threatening Letter.

Mr. D. G. Courtnay was called and said that John Sheedy was in his office two or three or four days before the last assault and gave him a letter he had received, indicating that he was to be assaulted and killed; witness gave it back to Sheedy; had looked through Sheedy's papers after his death, but had been unable to find it; Patrick and Michael Sheedy had then taken some of the clothing away. There was no name signed to the letter and it was in a disguised hand writing. Mr. Sheedy had said at the time that he had shown it to Mr. Sheedy. The substance of the letter was the unless Sheedy let up on his opposition to other gamblers and stopped trying to run the town, it would be only a question of time until he was killed.

"Mr. Courtnay, when did you tell Mr. Strode about that letter?" asked Mr. Hall.

"Yesterday, I had told Mr. Higgerstaff of it the evening before and had also spoken to Judge Weir."

"Is it not a fact Mr. Courtnay that the letter was signed a friend to your wife?"

"It is not."

"Did he ever show you any similar letter or letters signed in that way?"

"No sir."

The witness explained that the letter was postmarked to Lincoln, was not dated, and was written in what appeared to be a man's disguised hand.

The defense also endeavored to call out the substance of some letters Mrs. Sheedy had written for husband while she was in Buffalo, and how they came to be destroyed. He stated that Dennis Sheedyhad [feud]? them in the presence of the witness that had cried like a child. He was not permitted to tell of the contents or tone of those letters, although the defense persistently endeavored to draw out some imitation of the terms in which they were counsel form which it was easily inferred that they were ideal love letters.

Saw no Two Men running.

Officer Kinney was the first witness called in rebuttal by the state and said that he was with Officer Otto at the [Bure]? block corner, Twelfth and O, when the shooting occurred; saw no men running south on Twelfth; immediately ran north on Twelfth street about forty feet past the alley Henry Krause there turned around and ran around into the alley. Saw no one running south at any time. Saw no two boys standing on the south side of O street; they might have been there. The patrol wagon did not go to the Sheedy residence after the assault. Witness ran clear through the alley; thought Officer Adams did also.

Topping was Sober, but Saw no Men.

D. C. Topping, a blacksmith, was down but he opera house when the first shot was fired, and went north a little ways; went over that night or not; the record kept by him at that time would show it if it did.

He was shown the police record; said he made it himself, or thought he did; didn't know whether he was positive that it was his writing or that of Walter Melick. The record did not show that the wagon had gone out, and the witness said that he thought it had not gone to the Sheedy place that night.

This was to rebut the testimony of young Curry, one of the boys who claimed to have seen the two men running away, and who said that the patrol wagon drove up soon after he got there.

The state had been waiting and calling for Joe Screggins, but as he was not brought in Mr. Hall finally said:

"Your honor, the officers of the court do not appear to be able, to find the witness. We do not care to inflict any further delay, and have therefore concluded to announce that the state rests."

Judge Field said that a request had been made that the opening argument be postponed until Monday and if there were no objections it would be done. None were heard.

"I would like to have a definite understanding, however, among attorneys that this case is now closed, and positively no further testimony can be introduced. Mr. Bailiff, remove the jury."

A moment later court adjourned until 9 a. m. to-morrow, when Mr. Snell will make the opening argument for the state.

EAST LINCOLN.

Seip & Seybolt, real estate and loans.

Mr. M. L. Easterday had gone to Pennsylvani to attend the synod meeting of the Lutheran church.

Rev. L. W. Terry is snugly ensconced in the new Baptist parsonage at Twenty-sixth and Vine, and is pleased with it.

Professor Frank Easterday is suffering with laryngitis, the result of the wet weather while at camp with the university hand.

Mrs. M. L. Easterday entertained a few friends at her home, Twenty-fifth and T streets, Friday evening to commemorate her seventh wedding anniversary.

Miss Nellie Young, instructor, and Mr. William O'Shea, director of music at Wesleyan university, are preparing a musical treat for commencement week.

On Friday evening the ladies of the Vine street Congregational church gave an ice-cream social to their friends, which proved a success socially and financially.

The Eas Lincoln tennis club held a special meeting last night at the home of Miss Town, Twenty-fifth and Vine streets, to complete arrangements for the season's campaign.

The lecture on flowers by Professor Bessey of the state university, to the ladies' aid society of the Vine street Congregational church Wednesday evening was enjoyed by a large and appreciative audeince.

Wednesday evening of this week the choir of Grace M. R. church, directed by Professor Crosswaite, will give a concert to the congregation and friends. Much time and careful preparation has been given to rehearsals, and an excellent programme will be presented. The choir has been under thorough training for one last six months. All lovers of song and oratory of East Lincoln are invited.

Mr. J. R. Carson, who died at his home, Twenty-eighth and W , Friday morning, will be missed by a large circle of friends and acquaintances. He was a member of the G. A. R. and I. O. O. F., and was well and favorably known in the latter fraternity, although he did not affiliate with the Lincoln lodges. He had been suffering with kidney trouble for some years. The funeral will take place at Grace M. E. church at 10:45 this morning.

The East Lincoln C. L. S. C. held its last meeting of the year at the home of Miss Lutie Thomas 614 North Twenty-sixth street, Friday evening. This closed a series of most pleasant and instructive evenings of literary and scientific work. The society in East Lincoln was organized three years ago by Mr. A. G. Greenlee and others, and each year increases in membership and interest. The prospects for a larger and better class next year are good. The only member of the class who graduates this year is Miss L. B. Thomas, she will attend the exercises at Lake Chautauqua in July, where she will represent the East Lincoln circle with honor.

The Lincoln Ice company now makes daily trips to any part of the city. Telephone 225, office 1040 ) street.

4 Meteorological.

UNIVERSITY STATION, LINCOLN, May 23, 9 p. m.-- The following is the report of to-day;s weather from the University Meteorological station:

7 a. m. 2 p. m. 9 p. m.

Dry bulb thermometer.......... 59 55 56

Wet bulb thermometer..........48.5 53 51

Dew point.............................47 52 52

Relative humidity...................90 88 88

Barometer (sea level)..............80.19 50.12 30.00

Direction of wind...................E S E S E

Force of wind per hour...........6 12' 12

Clouds expressed in tenths.....10 10 .6

Daily mean temperature................................... 54

Highest temperature during 24 hours ending 9 p. m. ....................................................................... 60

Daily mean relative humidity............................ [88?]

Maximum relative humidity during 24 hours ending at 2 p. m. .............................................................. 90

Minimum relative humidity during 24 hours ending at 2 p. m. .............................................................. 84

Daily mean barometer sea level ....................... 30.16

Maximum barometer (sea level) during 24 hours ending at 2 p. m. ........................................................ 30.23

Minimum barometer (sea level) during 24 hours ending at 2 p. m. ........................................................ 30.04

Change of barometer during 24 hours ending 9 p. m., fall ...................................................................... 09

Total movement of wind for 24 hours ending at 2 p. m. ...................................................................... 160

Maximum force of wind per hour,for 24 hours ending at 2 p. m. ........................................................... 22

Minimum force of wind per hour, for 24 hours ending at 3 p. m. ........................................................... [?]

Character of day .............................................Cloudy

Precipitation Rainfall................................... - Snowfall.................................. -

Order Ice of the Lincoln Ice company 1040 ) street. Telephone 225.

SPECIAL ORDER NO 3.

Members of Farragut Post No. 25. G. A. R. Attention.

You are commanded to meet at the state house on the Sunday, May 24, 189[?], at 10 o'clock sharp, with proper memorial badge, for the purpose of attending divine services at the Christian church, by invitation of the elder, C. B. Newnan.

All ex-soldiers, sailors and marines are cordially invited to join with the post and participate in the services in memory of our noble dead.

By order of M. HOWE,

A. M. TRIMBLE, Commander.

Adjutant

Farragut Relief Corps.

The members of Farrgut W. R. C. are requested to meet at the capitol at 10 a. m. to attend in a body the memorial service at the Central church of Christ, corner of Fourteenth and K streets.

NANNIE ANTILL,

Corresponding Sec'y Pro tem.

AND OFFENSIVE BREATH

and dry throat are promptly relieved by a drink of Sulpho-Saline, bottled at Excelsior Springs, MO.

The Care of Those Who are Physically Disabled

The care and training of a perfectly strong child os a serious matter, though fortunately the task is so lightened bu parental love that its full seriousness is rarely left except in discouraged moments; but when the child is handicapped by some physical ailment or disability, the task becomes even harder. Then the rules and systematic care which are perfectly satisfactory for a healthy child have to be notified , perhaps thrown aside, and other methods of management substituted . Sometimes the changes have to be made not only in opposition to well-grounded practical methods of rearing children, but also directly across the grain of our [?] conviction of what is right for children to do or be. No intelligent parent doubts for a moment where his duty is in such cases, for the supremest duty for him is to develop and guard his child, regardless of rule, convictions or personal discomfort. The child os the vital part of the problem, and the prescribed key cannot always be relied on to find the requisite solution.

in the case of young children, changes in regimen are oftener made in mental; and moral training then in the physical. Parents and teachers are more apt to appreciate that the preventive ounce of tact, consideration, or sympathy before the mental or moral nature has been warped out of its healthful groove fat outweighs in its resultnthe curative pound. That there should be the same careful prevention of physical ills in a child no one will deny, but the trouble is that few realize just when prevention should begin, and how long and steadily it should be continues. Too often ailments or weaknesses are allowed to run without any conception of their destroying power as a child is not decidedly ill. The slight deviations from health are not noted, and the idea that something serious portends is not dreamed of - Harpers Bazar.

PLEADING FOR A VERDICT

SIX HOURS OF EARNEST ORATORY.

The Opening Arguments for the Three Parties to the Great Sheedy-McFarland Case.

County Attorney Snell Reviews the Evidence Generally in a Masterly Manner--Judge weir's Dignified Argument for Mrs. Sheedy.

Mr. Woodward Gets Fairly Begun.

The seats in the courtroom allotted to the public were not nearly filled yesterday morning when the opening hour arrived, but the arguments were not far advanced when not only the seats, but every available nook and corner in the large room were occupied by attentive and interested listeners. There were many more ladies present than at any time in the course of the trial and court officers and janitors had obligingly brought in a large number of camp chairs, which were placed inside the enclosure for the occupancy of the ladies, it was noticed that among the latter were many prominent Lincoln ladies who had not heretofore visited the trial, Mrs. Sheedy came into court accompanied by her uncle, Mr. Biggerstaff, and her three sisters, as well as Mr. Baker of Saline county, her brother-in-law. She was robed in the heavy mourning which she was worn during the trial and which becomes her so well. Her three sisters were arrayed in more cheerful colors. They had all made their toilet with unusual care, and as they reached the first-floor corridor coming from the jail they stopped just inside the large folding north door to submit to mutual inspection and put the finishing touched to the arrangement of their garments. Mrs. Sheedy appeared to be in an unusually cheerful mood. and smilingly chatted with her escort. While they stood thus employed Monday McFarland came in at the same door in the care of Deputy Sheriff Hoagland, conversing pleasantly with his sister, and followed by two other colored ladies. They passed the sextette at the door and repaired at once to the court room. where Monday resumed his accustomed seat at the end of the attorneys table.

It was several minutes ere Mrs. Sheedy came in and immediately every feminine neck in the court room was craned to catch a glimpse of the pale, composed face that looked out from the folds of the ample mourning veil. The members of the part appeared to be totally oblivious of the attention they were receiving, and quietly took their seats in the accustomed row facing the space between the court and the jury.

All of the attorneys were present except Captain Billingsley of McFarland's counsel, who appears to have dropped completely out of the case, having been supplanted by his partner, Mr. Woodward. It was thought at first that the attorneys would not probably consume more than two hours each, but the [?] of the case are so varied and exhaustive that one can hardly do justice to each feature of the evidence in that time. The eight arguments will, therefore, probably consume three entire days this week, closing probably tomorrow evening with the state's final argument by Mr. Lambertson.

It would be impossible to attempt to reproduce the arguments and the public must be content with a condensed statement of the substance of them without any reflection of the convincing language in which they were clothed.

Mr. Snell Opens for the State.

At 9:25 Mr. Snell took up the opening argument for the state. He began by describing the premises accurately and in detail, and how at 7:30 on that Sunday night John Sheedy stepped out of his door and was [fouily?] assaulted and murdered.

"When darkness folded her sable mantle and wrapped its pullover this city on the evening of January 11 last, there had been planned and was on the eve of execution a murderous conspiracy, which for devilish malevolence and hideous cunning, and depravity stands out bold and alone in the criminal annals of Lancaster county. I refer to the assault made that evening upon John Sheedy, and which culminated in his death the following day! The preliminaries for the commission of this murder had been arranged with careful reference to detail, and the parties concerned would, perhaps, have escaped punishment had not, the principal actor in the assault, stung to remorse by a guilty conscience, revealed the infamous conspiracy by a confession, which revealed the details in all their hideous deformity, and pilloried the accomplice before the gaze of a startled community.

He detailed the arrest and preliminary proceedings after suspicion had settled upon the defendants and showed how Monday McFarland had been a barber employed occasionally at the Sheedy home in dressing Mrs. Sheedy's hair, and that while so employed, an hour or more at a time, in such instances Mrs. Sheedy had ample opportunity to sound him and ascertain in what way she might avail herself of his services in securing her freedom.

He then took up the testimony, beginning with that of Mrs. Charles' Coil, who had frequently seen Monday McFarland hanging about the corner of Thirteenth and P streets, endeavoring to disguise himself and escape observation, and compared it with the confession of Monday, wherein he told of having stood at that corner to see Mrs. Sheedy go walking with her lover, the man who she said was ready to do the job if Monday didn't. While the defense had industriously and ingenuinely endeavored to make it appear that on standing at the corner of Thirteethn and P streets could not see the Sheedy residence, Monday McFarland's confession told how he had stood at that very corner and had seen John Sheedy come out of the house and go down town on that night when Walstrom took a walk with Mrs. Sheedy.

He told [?]ow the testimony of P. J. Stepney, Monday's cousin, showed that Monday had secured Stepney's overcoat on the Tuesday previous to the assault, the very day upon which Monday had also purchased the cane of Goldwater, showing that he was then formulating his cunning plans for the murder.

The took the testimony of William Chann showing that Monday was at the witness' room up to 6 or 7 o'clock, and how at a late hour he again appeared at Tinn's place and said he had lost his cane. He called attention to the failure of the array of counsel for the defense to allow where Monday was during the hour upon which the assault was committed.

The defense had endeavored to throw suspicion upon Gleason and Williams, the gamblers but they had not made a single effort to bring these parties to an accountability, and the testimony of Mr. Courtnay as to the threatening letter had been called in at the eleventh hour, when the state had no opportunity to meet it.

"No man ever committed the awful crime of murder without a motive. What, then, was the motive that startled the nerves and seared the conscience of Monday McFarland? What prompted him to the commission of the most awful crime known to our statutes? There was a motive: what was it? It was Mary Sheedy, the wife of the man against whose life she was conspiring, and she urged him on not alone by the promise of great financial reward, but, as he says in his confession, by the sacrifice of her chastity to him. Still he could not nerve himself to attempt the life of a man who had been his benefactor, and to whom he had every reason to consider he owed a debt of gratitude he could never repay."

He dwelt at length upon the efforts of the defense to show that the most amicable relations existed between Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy by such witnesses as E. H. Andrus, C. O. Whedon and W. J. Marshall. witnesses who would not be at all likely to ever see John Sheedy pounding his wife or hear Mrs. Sheedy scolding her husband like a fish woman. The defense had purposely called witnesses who knew nothing of the facts and had studiously failed to ask any of their own witnesses, who were qualified to know, whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy lived happily, not even Mrs. Dean, the sister of the defendant, who lived in the family.

He then took up the evidence of the witnesses for the state--that of Mrs. Swift and Mrs. Hood, who unwillingly testified that their relations were anything but amicable, and that of Johnnie Klausner, who said that he had found Mrs. Sheedy once in tears and she had said she was going to get a divorce.

The record in the case failed to disclose that any domestic infelicity had ever agitated the Sheedy family until after she had returned from Buffalo, bringing with her the picture of young Walstrom, and said that while the defense will endeavor to make it appear that Mrs. Sheedy's friendship for Walstrom was a harmless one, still it is probable that each members of the jury will reflect that when a married woman evinces such an interest in a young man and exhibits his picture so proudly to her friends, he will arrive at the concinsion that he would prefer it were somebody's else wife than his own.

The speaker referred to the relations existing between Walstrom and Mrs. Sheedy; how he came to the city soon after her return, hunted up Johnnie Klausner and introduced himself as the young man of whom Mrs. Sheedy had already spoken to Klausner; how they went together to a room in the Heater block, Walstrom paying two-thirds of the room rent, how soon afterwards Johnnie Klausner began carrying sealed notes, which were not addressed, between Mrs. Sheedy and Walstrom. If those notes were harmless notes why in the name of Mrs. Sheedy's innocence had not the defense brought at least one of Walstrom's notes, which were undoubtedly in their possession, into court to show how innocent they were. And it is a little remarkable that Mrs. Sheedy never sent any lunches to Klausner's room until Walstrom came to room with him, as Klausner testifies himself.

The speaker also referred to the purchase of the night shirts and other gents' wear by Mrs. Sheedy; how she may have said that they were for her husband, but that the defense had failed to bring them into court from among John Sheedy's effects because they were in the possession of A. H. Walstrom; wherever he may be. He told how Walstrom had gone to Mrs. Carpenter's home with her and the latter's sister had gone after Mrs. Sheedy, who came at once: how immediately after the assault Mrs. Sheedy first called for some one to go after the priest and the very next moment for C. C. Carpenter to go and tell Walstrom that Sheedy had been assaulted how she called Walstrom her sweetheart and on the night of the first assault had said that people could not say that "her Henry" did it, [?] he was at work that night, and how she sent word to Walstrom 'that as he valued her friendship he should come to Sheedy's funeral. He contended that the only reasonable explanation of all these acts was that Mrs. Sheedy was maintaining criminal relations with Walstrom, and said that it was shown by the testimony that not until after Walstrom arrived that Mrs. Sheedy complained of her treatment by Sheedy or that John Sheedy threatened to shoot her.

He took up Monday's confession and gave its chief points briefly, showed how every after fact confirmed the story, and how utterly impossible it would be for Monday or any other man to invent such a story.

He said that the defense would endeavor to create a sympathy for Mrs. Sheedy by picturing an ideal woman and dwelling upon the fact that John Sheedy was a gambler, but Mrs. Sheedy had married him with her eyes open. She knew he was a gambler and married him because he was a gambler with money and she would have little or nothing to do. He said that there was nothing preposterous in the supposition that Mrs. Sheedy had committed adultery with a black man when it is known that a woman with murder in her heart will do anything. The counsel for defense had already frequently referred to her as the "sad-faced" and "pensive-faced" woman and other sympathetic terms, but they could much more appropriately have designated her as the woman with an iron nerve and a desperate purpose at heart. Mr. Snell picked Monday's confession to pieces and told in detail how every known circumstance brought out in the testimony corroborated the entire truth and wonderful accuracy of that remarkable story of the criminal conspiracy.

He detailed how the finding of the solid gold ring in the pawnshop, where it had been left by Monday, corroborated the latter's statement that Mrs. Sheedy gave him a gold ring. He had said in his confession that on the morning of the assault he had cut a little boy's hair in the house just east of the Sheedy place. When the lady who lived there testified she said that Monday had cut her grandson's hair the morning of the assault. On the evening of the fatal assault, Monday claims in the confession while he was waiting in the back yard to see the east window curtain go up, Mrs. Sheedy came out to the pump and got some water. Some time afterwards she came out and worked the pump again, but did not get any water and did it merely as a subterfuge. It was then that she talked to him. When Mrs. Sheedy testified before the coroner's jury, she, too, had said that she had gone out that evening to get a pitcher of water. He explained how Mrs. Sheedy's own testimony before the coroner as to the east window curtain, had substantiated the darkey's story, showing that Mrs. Sheedy had pulled down the curtains a short time before her husband went out. This would permit her, by pulling up the curtain, to signal Monday that he husband was coming out.

Mr. Snell then took up the testimony of the defense and touched up Mr. W. W. Carder., for the readiness and positiveness with which he had identified the fatal cane as his own, and compared it with his total inability to identify his own hand writing in the police register when it was introduced in relation to whether or not the patrol wagon went out that night.

He took the confession of Monday McFarland in relation to the shot tired in the night of December 9, and showed how every minute feature of it was corroborated by the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hosman, except as to the color of the assailant. Even the relative positions of the parties, the clothing which the assailant wore and the time at which the assault occurred were the same in both statements. In Monday's confession he told of having fallen down at the corner of the porch just after firing that shot, and very strangely both Mr. and Mrs. Hosman testify that after firing the shot the man whom they identified as a white man fell down at the corner of the porch. He showed the utter fallacy of their positive assertion that the man was white by quoting the assertion of Mr. Hosman to the effect that when the man fell down, although it was late at night and the fugitive was some thirty feet away in the darkness, the witness could see that he wore three or four days growth of beard. He said that it was very likely that the supposed growth of beard was none other than Monday McFarland's swarthy complexion, else how did Monday McFarland, long ere it was known that Mr. and Mrs. Hosman would testify in the case at all, know that the man who fired that shot fell down at the corner of the porch, or any of the other facts as related by him and afterwards proven?

The speaker called attention to the hang dog deportment of the two boys who had testified to having seen two men run south on Twelfth street just after the assault, as well as to the discrepancies in their stories, and said that he had felt sorry for those boys ,as he had never felt sorry for a witness before. He reverted to the fact that the efforts of the defense to raise a doubt in the jurors' minds by testimony throwing suspicion upon two gamblers had been thwarted by positive testimony as to the whereabouts of those two men at the time of the commission of the assault. He showed how four of the six physicians sworn had testified that Sheedy's death was due to morphine poisoning and not to the blow, although they had to admit thereby that their first opinions in the case, prior to the autopsy, were in error.

Mr. Snell's closing point was the best he had made. It was to the effect that it would have been simply impossible for anyone to have made the assault on John Sheedy as it was committed unless he had had a confederate inside of the house to signal him when Mr. Sheedy was coming out, just as Monday McFarland and claimed Mrs. Sheedy signalled to him by raising the window blind. The plat will show that the north end of the house is but about twelve feet from the sidewalk. The testimony shows that Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy were sitting in the north room near the north windows, the curtains of which were up. The east window, opening out of the next room to the south, could afford no view of them. It would have been impossible for an intending assassin to watch their movements through the north windows, and he would have certainly been detected by the people constantly passing along that much travelled street. It was too light upon the porch for an assassin to have escaped observation had he chosen to crouch there while waiting for his victim to come out. Any loiterer about the porch or front windows would certainly have attracted attention. But back about thirty feet or more from the fence, directly on the east side of thouse, was an arbor, behind which the assassin must have secreted himself, just as Monday McFarland says in his confession that he did secrete himself. From this point it would be impossible to have discerned when Mr. Sheedy was coming out, had not someone signalled his coming, just as Monday McFarland says in his confession she did, when he stepped upon the porch and struck that blow with the cane.

"And what does Mrs. Sheedy say in her testimony before the coroner? The east window that opens out of the sitting room, which is just south of the parlor. The floor leading to the porch opens onto the parlor. To get to the kitchen from the parlor one passes through the fitting room. Mrs. Sheedy says that she helped JOhn on with his overcoat and hat, and then started for the kitchen. Then it was that she raised the window curtain in the sitting room to let Monday McFarland know that husband was coming.

The county attorney spoke for and hour and fifty-five minutes, and while there were no attempts at oratory, the logical arrangement of the facts upon which he dwelt impressed itself upon his bearers and commanded the utmost attention. His argument was commended on every hand and many brother attorneys and quite a number of his feminine bearers were seen congratulating him.

Judge Weir's Argument for Mrs. Sheedy.

He was followed by Judge Weir of Mrs. Sheedy's counsel, who took up the forty minutes prior to noon, in introductory remarks, congratulating the jury upon the progress of the case towrad completion and explaining how he came to be in the case---as a friend and neighbor of Mrs. Sheedy's uncle, Mr. Biggerstaff. He dwelt in an impressive manner upon the importance of the case, not only to the defense, but to the state. He said that without any semblance of flattery he could say that the chief counsel for the defense had done their duty faithfully, honestly and ably, and if he had been able to suggest to them one valuable thought or idea that would assist them in their work, he had done his duty. He complimented the jury upon the attention they had given the evidence. He then explained the duties of counsel for the state to be honestly, fairly and impartially endeavor to see that crime meets its just punishment. He had no criticisims to make in relation to the counsel for the state. They had done their work faithfully, zealously and ably. When an attorney for the state exhibits undue zeal to secure conviction of a party accused he becomes a persecutor instead of a prosecutor.

The speaker then took up the two chief propositions of law involved in the case and detailed in the most minute manner their bearing upon their venlict. The first principle one upon which counsel would all agree was that the law presumes the defendants innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt; not a doubt that might be conjured it up, but a doubt that is reasonable. He quoted many principles and maxims of the law designed to serve as a shield for the accused and thoroughly fixed in the hands of the jurors the duty of considering the accused innocent until convinced of their guilt. He just fairly warmed by when the noon

MONDAY, TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY,

We place on exhibition in our east front windows a large number of

SUMMER DRESS PATTERNS

Of which we will Deliver Free

THURSDAY, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY

A pattern with on year's subscription to The Bazar Journal and Mothers' Assistant a very useful publication, and this way the publishers intend introducing an almost indispensible work.

HERPOLSHEIMER & CO.

TELEPHONE: OFFICE: [176?] 1001 O Street

MOVING HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PIANOS A SPECIALTY

hour arrived and court adjourned for dinner.

The Afternoon Session.

At 2:10 Judge Weir resumed his argument on the propositions of law involved. There was the largest crowd present of any day of the trial. Lines of spectators stood up around the walls and the space inside the railing was filled with seats occupied by ladies.

After discussing the law Judge Weir attacked the the theory advanced by the state as to the motve of the crime. He said the state endeavored to show that John Sheedy and his wife lived in great discord, and that the latter was therefore anxious to get rid of her husband; that to that end the state had shown that on one occasion she had said she had wanted to get a divorce. This was the strongest evidence shown by the prosecution on that point; that up to July last she was afflicted with a disease peculiar to women; that she was solicited to go east and put herself under the treatment of skilled physicians; that she did go, accompanied by her husband. who left her there; that while there she met and fell in love with a young man named Walstrom, and that she procured him to come to Lincoln. And the theory of the state was that it was because of her love for Walstrom that she was led to imbrue her hands in the blood of her kind and affectionate husband.

He said that the state had failed to bring any evidence, except a few isolated facts, in support of their theory, and all in the nature of circumstantial evidence. He explained at length the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, and urged the necessity of the establishment of a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence in order to convict, from which there must be missing not a single link.

He then returned to the fact that John Sheedy was a gambler and that the wife did not approve of the business. It also appeared that he was a king among gamblers and very naturally excited jealousy among others in the same business. Hence, very naturally and very reasonably, he had enemies among that class.

When the crime was committed and he was laid upon his deathbed by a blow administered at his own door, the question arose as to what was the source of that crime. Did it emanate from the jealousy of his companions in business, or did it emanate from the wishes of his wife. Which is the more reasonable theory? Could it not have been committed by same other than Monday McFarland? The speaker quoted the threatening letter received by Sheedy only four days prior to the assault, telling him that unless he let up on the other gamblers he would be killed.

He said that it was not until some days after the tragedy that some circumstance fastened suspicion upon Monday McFarland and at once the policemen and detectives saw a chance offered by this tragedy to make money. He dwelt at length in criticism of the methods adopted by the officers in extorting the alleged confession from Monday, and said that although God, in His inscrutible wisdom, had made him black, he was a human being, endowed with a human soul, and was entitled to the protection of the law, which was in this instance denied him. He urged at length the incompetency of that alleged confession because it was obtained by threats, violence and promises of immunity. If the jury was of the opinion, from the evidence, that that confession was obtained by threats or promises, then, the court would instruct them, they must exclude it from their consideration.

To prove that it was so obtained he referred to the fact that Marshal Melick at the very time of making the arrest, had made the first promise of immunity. He said: "If you make these disclosures it will be easier for you." He referred rather less courteously to James Malone, who, he said, seemed to be the centre of the prosecution and was called upon for testimony whenever testimony was needed, and related the testimony of W. W. Carder to the effect that Malone had endeavored to make Monday believe that a mob was being organized outside of the jail to hand him, and that as soon as it reached a hundred it would come for him. Actuated by the fear thus engendered Monday had made the alleged confession. That was early Sunday morning. Later in the day this poor creature, feeling that he was deserted and that his life was in danger, was brought before the mayor and the marshal and Dennis Sheedy, with a shorthand reporter behind the curtain and there, still laboring under his violent sense of fear, had related the story introduced in the testimony.

The speaker also referred to the repetition of the confession before the coroner's jury as having been similarly obtained by threats and promises, all having been practically a part of the same transaction. He contended that there was testimony to show that Monday was sworn when he recited the confession. and said that if the jury so found from the preponderance of testimony, that confession should not be considered by them.

The speaker cautioned the jury that it was not to place too high an estimate upon the testimony of detectives, as the law has recognized the fact that in their zeal to reap a reward by the conviction of an accused they would frequently transcend the bounds of honesty and rectitude.

"We contend," said Judge Weir, "that the confessions proposed to be considered here were confessions extorted from this poor, miserable,ignorant black man by a violation of law, and if they were extorted from him by a violation of the law, and if they were extorted from him by a violation of the law provided for his protection, they are powerless against him as evidence."

He also contended that these confessions, whether true or false, could not be considered as evidence of the guilt of Mrs. Sheedy. But the story itself need only be considered to convince one that it is absolutely false. He contended that no man could believ that the story as told by Monday McFarland about "this good woman" was true. It was contrary to human nature.

"It is not true; it's against human nature; it is preposterous, and should be spurned with contempt from the consideration of every upright, honest, unprejudiced and impartial man.

The theory of the defense is that Mrs. Sheedy, in connection with the negro, murdered her husband; that while he was lying upon his bed languishing and dying from the effects of that blow, she was so lost to the sentiments of humanity that she mixed the fatal dose in coffee, and unknown to the physician in charge, administered it to her husband."

He dwelt upon the improbability of such a theroy because of its repugnancy to the idea of wifely affection. Then followed the autopsy and the analysis of the contents of the stomach, in which no poison was found. Then they brought a chemist from Chicago. took up the body again, submitted other portions of the body to an analysis in their zeal to fasten the crime upon the wife, yet all the appliances of science had failed to reveal the presence of morphine poisoning or any other poisoning. He thought that at this point the prosecution would have paused to reflect upon the persecution of this woman and that Dennis Sheedy, who appeared to be furnishing the means therefor, 'would have foregone further persecution, and in a burst of eloquence denounced the course of Dennis Sheedy as a malignant effort to persecute and destroy the beloved and innocent wife of his dead brother. He denounced the inference that there was any criminality in the acquaintance with Walstrom, and contended that the state had wonderfully magnified her little attentions to him into a crime in order to show that she had a motive to murder her husband and had committed the unnatural crime of adultery with the negro to secure that end. It was a preposterous theory, yet it was the theory upon which the state would ask the jury to convict this good woman of the awful crime of murder, a crime punishable by death.

"Can you in view of these few and isolated and innocent expressions of friendliness--can you put the brand of infamy upon her? Can you because of them fasten the awful crime of murder upon this ill-used and persecuted woman?"

He denounced the prosecution as the result of love of money, the root of all evil. and said that he did not believe that jurors could be utilized as factors in the perpetration of such persecution.

"Down there in that little home--It was not majestic in its appointments, it is true, but it was a home in which this loving husband and this loving wife had spent many happy years together--"

Here is was that Mrs. Sheedy burst into tears for the first time, but it was but a momentary indulgence, for in an incredibly short time she had dried her eyes and resumed her contemplative gaze at the base of the dais in front of her.

The speaker drew a sentimental and eloquent picture of the relations of husband and wife, referring to the testimony that showed Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy sitting side by side in the cheerful parlor just before the assault, and that showing her beside his bed the next day calling upon him to speak to her, and said that the history of criminal jurisprudence told of no case that would equal this if she were guilty.

Judge Wier had talked for two hours and twenty-five minutes when he voiced his thanks to the jury for the attention given him and closed.

It was an address that stamped him as an erudite lawyer and a dignified, forcible and eloquent orator. His voice is not strong at all times, but his utterances were measured and distinct and every word fell upon an attentive hearing. His closing remarks were especially well calculated to create a sympathy for his fair client, who sat with eyes half closed and moist with a promise of tears which never materialized. She seemed not to hear her eloquent advocate's references to her troubles, being evidently communing with her own thoughts.

Mr. Woodward's Argument for McFarland.

In opening his review of the evidence in behalf of Monday McFarland Mr. Woodward said he expected to show from the evidence that this prosecution was the result of a conspiracy as black as hell itself. He said that in the opneing of the case practices had been resorted to by counsel for the state more damnable than any that had ever been unearthed beneath the dome of heaven; that Mrs. Sheedy was a woman without issue and by the laws of the land was entitled to half the fortune of her dead husband. If convicted of his murder it went to others.

Hence it was, he expected to show, that under the law of the ladn the eminent counsel for the prosecution, secured by Dennis Sheedy's blood money, had no right whatever to be there. He said that when it was discovered that no poison had been found in the stomach of John Sheedy the state no longer had any case against Mary Sheedy, and she ought to have been discharged and probably would have been but for this conspiracy. Instead, thereof she was held until her persecutors had gone down into the grave in search again of poison upon which to convict her, and even during this trial Mr. Hall had gone to Chicago in his eager search for that poison. When the second analysis failed to reveal the presence of poison, the attorneys in this conspiracy come into court still contending that poison had been administered and that it had passed out of the system and could not therefore be found.

Mr. Woodward then took up the admissibility of the confessions and spent some time in the discussion of the testimony in relation to the threats or persuasion used to secure them. He quoted Mayor Graham who said that "considerable persuasion" was used, and contended that if any were used it was enough to take the confessions out of the consideration of the jury. Marshal Melick, whose word no one will doubt, testified that he had told Monday that it would be easier for him if he would tell the whole story. Even Jim Malone admitted that Monday had told him that he was afraid of a mob. The speaker raked the testimony of Malone all over, pointed out that he had told Frank Waters, B. r. Pinneo, Mr. Strode and Mr. Philpott that he had scared the confession out of Monday, and in view of his denial that he had had so told them, his testimony was unworthy of the slighest credence. He detailed the testimony of Officers Splain and Kinney to show that Monday was badly scared that Sunday morning, and told how, while the officers were in there urging Monday to tell the story, others out in the office struck the floor with their feet to make it appear that the mob was coming, and then it was that Monday McFarland, with visions of the mob and the rope in his brain," told his story in fear and trembling, but not until he had protested that "If they hang me they will hang an innocent man."

He called attention to the testimony in reference to Malone's methods and claimed that Klausner had testified that Malone had imprisoned him for two weeks and refused to liberate him, trying meantime to get some statement out of him against Mary Sheedy.

Mr. Hall interrupted the speaker to say that there was no such thing as that in the testimony, but Mr. Woodward contended that there was,and denounced the act as a "high-handed outrage which ought to subject Jim Malone to punishment."

"And this is the man whom this miserable, blood-thirsty prosecution would have you jurors believe to be a quiet, lamb-like gentleman, as gentle as a dove, who would not have done anything to injure or frighten this miserable negro, Monday McFarland, into telling this miserable story."

He went on to show that the confession before the coroner's jury was made under oath, and contended that none of the confessions could be considered unless the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they were voluntary.

The speaker then said that he not only claimed that the confession was not voluntary, but that it was a lie from beginning to end.

"It has been said that there was a negro in the wood pile, but I propose to show you that there is a Caucasion, or several Causcasions in the wood pile this time."

He said that in his early days he had been a school teacher himself and he was prepared to assert that Monday's alleged story would prove of itself that it was a lie from beginning to end, made up out of what Monday knew of the relations of Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy and interpolations of other parties.

"Monday McFarland is an ignorant negro barber. Let me read you some of the expressions found in that confession. The 'consequences of this art?' What does Monday McFarland know about the word 'consequences?' If he had met it in the big road, he would not have recognized it."

This assertion created considerable laughter and Monday grinned with undeniable pleasure at the reference to his [men?]orance. The attorney also [?]

(Continued on Seventh Page.)

PLEADING FOR A VERDICT

(Continued From Sixth Page.)

out the words "intimate," "inducements," "she pictured out to me," "she gave me a limited time to commit the murder," and other similar expressions as ones such a person as Monday would not have been likely to make use of, and that they must have been put into his mouth.

Mr. Woodward called attention to the fact that the law books show the names of a hundred people who have been executed upon circumstantial evidence in cases where subsequent evidence proved them to have been innocent. He referred to to the recent attempt at suicide of William Windnagel, the Randolph street butcher, who was found nearly dead in the rear of his shop with his throat cut while a man named Carr was seen in the room with a bloody knife in his hand and as soon as someone entered had started to run. He told how, if Windnagel had not recovered to tell that he had attempted suicide, the man Carr would have fallen a victim to circumstantial evidence.

Mr. Woodward contended that it was possible to conceive that John Sheedy was never murdered at all. "I have grave suspicion," said he, "that if no medical gentlemen had ever crossed the threshold of John Sheedy's home that night he would have been alive to-day."

He told of the discrepancy of the expert testimony as to the cause of death, and ridiculed unmercifully the inaccuracy of the medical theories advanced, but in any event four out of the six physicians introduced had sworn that the blow administered by Monday did not cause death. He dwelt upon the possibility that the druggist might have given Dr. Hart something other than sulfonal, or that thirty grains of sulfonal, taken in connection with his many wounds and diseased organs might have caused his death. Certain it was that the doctors had not definitely found the cause of Sheedy's death. First they had declared it to have been caused by compression due to the blow, and after the autopsy, when they found they had made a mistake in their diagnosis, they had to find an excuse for that mistake.

The speaker then took up the confessions of his client and endeavored to show that many of the things he was reported to have said were very impossible. He ridiculed the idea that Mrs. Sheedy had ever frightened Monday as the latter claimed in that confession that she did, and contended that it was very improbable, as Monday must have known that had he gone to Sheedy and told him all. Sheedy would undoubtedly have protected him. He read from the confession wherein Monday had told of having once borrowed a revolver with which to commit the murder, but had returned it and didn't remember from whom he had borrowed it. he contended that this was improbable, because the detectives had never discovered from whom Monday had borrowed any such weapon, which they would certainly have done of he had ever borrowed one.

He dwelt in ridicule and denunciation upon Monday's story of how Mrs. Sheedy had beaten him and even referred to his clients as "this poor, miserable negro" to the confession as "this poor, miserable statement," and to the state ad this "blood-thirsty, miserable prosecution."

At 5:30 Mr.Woodward informed the court that he at a good place to break off for the night and an adjournment was taken until 9 a. m. to-day. Notwithstanding the fact that he had talked for an hour and forty-five minutes, Mr.Woodward replied, when asked as to how near he was to the end.

"I have just got fairly started and will probably require all to-morrow forenoon.

It is probable that Mr. Stearns will follow him, and then will come in order Messrs. Hall, Philpott, Strode, and Lambertson. It will be seen that the arguments will hardly close before to-morrow evening.

Why She Didn't Testify

It will be remembered that it was stated in these columns that Mrs. Sheedy insisted for a time upon being permitted to go upon the stand. She had confidence in her sagacity and ability to battle the inquisitiveness of the opposing counsel. It would undoubtedly have been a trump card in her defense had she been able to stand a credible examination and it is probable that attorneys would very much have wished her to go on had they been assured of the security in so doing. Some of them were not. To settle the matter, it is related, they concluded to put some questions to her themselves. She answered satisfactorily, it is said, until Mr. Stearns asked what there was in those notes she sent to Walstrom by young Klausner.

"Must I answer that?" inquired his client.

"You will certainly be required to do so if you go on the stand," was the reply.

"Well, then, I won't go." is said to have been her reply, and she didn't.

A STARTLING ARRAIGNMENT

EXTRACTS FROM HON. F. M. HALL'S ARGUMENT.

Mr. Woodward Closes His Long Plea For Monday and Mr. Stearns Begins.

The Fair Defendant Sits Unmoved Throughout the Pointed Address of Mr. Hail on Behalf of the State--A Crowded Court Room.

Will Hardly Close To day.

The wonderful interest which has been aroused in the public mind by the great Sheedy trial was yesterday more fully demonstrated than at any previous time since its opening twenty-two days ago. At an early hour the large room was crowded, and a majority of the audience were ladies, among them being many of the most prominent in social leadership, wealth and fashion. Seats were at a premium throughout the day and many ladies who, it was suspected, would never deign to express their thankfulness for the privilege of a seat in a street car, stood up for hours around the walls while intently listening to the eloquence of the contending counsel. In spite of the unusual size of the crowd and the paucity of accommodations, the utmost good order prevailed, and it was not until Mr. Stearns, near the close of the day, aroused the [resibilities?] of all by several facetious remarks, that there was the necessity of even a call to order by the bailiff.

During Mr. Hall's argument, which was very pointed and at times severe upon Mrs. Sheedy, the face of the demure defendant was a study for a physiognomist or a mind reader. She appeared to pay no more attention to his castigatious than if they concerned someone whom she did not know and were delivered beyond her hearing. Not a smile or a frozen, a wink or a look betrayed her slightest interest in the discussion.

Monday McFarland was hardly less stolid and composed. His features were rigid in their composure, and while he seemed to hear every word uttered, the effect was imperceptible.

It was 9:15 when Mr. Woodward resumed his argument in behalf of the defense. He reviewed briefly the points of his argument of the evening before and immediately waded into his discussion of the admissibility of the confession as evidence.

"I challenge these gentlemen to explain to me one thing: If Monday McFarland had made that confession voluntarily to Jim Malone, why did they subsequently secure a stenographer and have it reduced to writing?"

He went over the entire testimony tending to show that the confession was scared out of his client by threats and promises.

"Was there anybody else connected with this assault? I claim that the evidence points to the fact that there was: that it points more unerringly toward somebody else than it odes toward my poor client."

He reverted to the fact that no one saw Monday McFarland around the house at that time, but on the contrary Henry Krauss was seen running, not toward the alley, but the southwest corner of the yard, and he had said that the man ran down the alley. How did he know? Krause says that John Sheedy shot one shot at him, and that he got behind a tree. The testimony of Krause wherein he explained how he came to be at that point was commented upon in ridicule.

"I don't say that Mr. Krause had anything to do with the assault, but I do say that his conduct on that occasion can not be explained upon any other theory than that he was connected with it."

The speaker took up the testimony of Hymen Goldwater and contended that no credence should attach to it whatever; that he never saw that cane and that his testimony was manufactured by himself and Jim Malone. Goldwater had said that he did not want to go upon the witness stand as he had too many enemies. The latter proposition no one would question, but the first the speaker begged leave to discredit. Goldwater did want to go upon the stand because he had his blood-money nestling at the bottom of his pocket. He showed the cane found in Monday's possession after the assault, how similar it was to the cane found at the Sheedy residence, and contended that Malone had procured Hyman Goldwater to identify the cane found as the one he had sold to Monday. He dwelt upon the testimony of L. C. Burr, wherein the latter claimed that Goldwater had told him that he had never had the fatal cane in his shop.

The exchange of overcoats asshown by Stepney was a very ordinary circumstance, and occurred several days ere the assault, and according to Henry Gerner and Dr. Ruth M. Woods the east window curtain was not down before the assault, so that Mrs. Sheedy could not by it have signalled Monday as claimed.

The state had harped upon the finding of Monday's gold ring in a pawnshop as a circumstance in corroboration of Monday's confession to the effect that Mrs. Sheedy had given him a gold ring, but there was not a single bit of testimony to identify that ring as ever having belonged to Mary Sheedy, which would be very easy to show if she had ever had it in her possession.

He then took up the testimony of Krause again, referred to the testimony implicating Gleason, Jetes, Bradeen and Williams in the suspicions entertained by John Sheedy.

"And there is one thing I want to ask the counsel for the state, and if they know it will take very little time for them to tell this jury. Where was Frank Williams on that eventful Sunday night? Where was he, I say? Have they told us?" No. One witness says he was at work at Bradeen's and another that he was somewhere else. Now, where was he? I don't know where he was at the time of the assault, but I know where he was a few moments afterward. Across the street, not a block away from the Sheedy residence, at the same place where Monday McFarland was also, at Hud Lindsey's. Don't you believe, gentlemen of the jury, that Frank Williams knew something about that crime? I don't believe that Gleason had anything to do with it. Ab Carder swears that Sheedy meant Gleason when he said the 'big man.' I don't believe it. If he had meant Gleason he would have said the tall man. When he said the big man he meant the heavy set man. And it is a little remarkable that Frank Williams as the evidence shows, skipped to Denver when this prosecution came on."

The speaker then took up the testimony of Wilber Mayes and the two boys, Hitchcock and Curry, smoothed over their discrepancies as of no consequence and harmonized it with the theory of Williams' connection with the crime. Ab Carder had said that Sheedy had hired him to watch two men. Gleason and Williams, and after the assault when Sheedy said it was the big man of the two he meant Williams.

"The same man who fired that shot on the 9th of December was the one who committed that Assault on the 11th day of January, and it was a white man. Which would you believe in reference to that matter--the confession of Monday McFarland that he did it or the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hosman to the effect that the assailant was a white man? Is not the latter statement much the more reliable: and is it not clearly proven that that shot was fired by a white man?

The [speaker?] commended the identification of the fatal cane by W. W. Carder as compared with the identification of the same cane by Goldwater, reasoning that if that was Carder's cane it could not have been the one which Goldwater sold to Monday McFarland.

The testimony of George Bradeen to the effect that William Gleason was in his place at the hour of the assault was probably true, but nowhere did Mr. Bradeen show that Frank Williams was there at that time, although it was shown that Williams was an employe there. It was a little remarkable that the evidence shows that at that gambling room, twenty-five minutes after the assault, it was stated that the gamblers had something to do with it. How did they come to say that? Was there not some foundation for that assertion?"

Reverting to the testimony of the two boys he said that it would have been very improbable that the officers should have seen or noticed the two men running down Twelfth street, as their attention was turned elsewhere.

"Why, gentlemen, I undertake to say, that had Mr. Hall been there and noticed a handsome woman in that vicinity, or had Mr. Lambertson been there and a fine thoroughbred bulldog been about that vicinity, a Comanche Indian might have done down that street in full way paint and they would not have seen him. Their attention would have been elsewhere."

Mr. Woodward closed after an argument consuming over three hours, of a wandering nature, but such a one as was well calculated to awaken the doubt in the minds of the jurors, upon which the defense appears to depend so much.

Frank Hall's Powerful Argument.

It was 10:45 when Mr. Hall took his place before the jury and launched into one of the most forcible, clean-cut and convincing arguments ever presented to a jury in Lancaster county. He began as follows:

"May it please the court and gentlemen of the jury, it as with some embarrassment and reluctance that I attempt to address you on this occasion: I believe that this is the first time that I have ever appeared in a criminal prosecution where the charge was murder in the first degree, and I think I realize something of the importance of this occasion and something of my duty in connection with this prosection.

I regret exceedingly that my embarrassment has been enhanced by the statements and accusations of counsel for the defense, in trying to make this jury believe that my position as counsel in this case is purely on for blood money. There has been more said upon this occasion than it seems to me the conduct of the relatives interested in this prosecution would warrant, and I dare say that you will hear more in that same line. They would try to create the impression in the minds of this jury that myself and my co-counsel, Mr. Lambertson, are brought into this case for the purpose of wringing a verdict from this jury in violation of the law and evidence.

Gentlemen of the jury, so far as I am concerned, I have no desire to force you beyond the law and the evidence for the purpose of wringing a verdict of guilty from you. Why it seemed necessary for the counsel for the defense to attempt to embarrass the situation of the assistant counsel to the state. I do not know. I could surmise; so can you. and I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

So far as the prisoners in this case are concerned. I have no ill-will against either of them. I would not raise a finger to do them the simplest injury. But this is not a time for morbid sentimentality. You have a duty to perform. I have a duty to perform, and so far as any criticismsor any reflection that may be cast upon me because perchance, I may have appeared as assistant in this prosecution. I am willing to assume the responsibility of everything I have done in connection with this prosecution, and I answer by saying that I have been prompted by an honest motive. I have done what I have done because I believed the parties arraigned before you are guilty of the crime of which they stand charged. You have heard a great deal said, and there has been great complaint, and much of it about the manner of this prosecution. They would have you believe that we have purchased evidence; that we fixed up a case; that there is a conspiracy here for the purpose of oppressing a wronged woman, perchance, for the purpose of enhancing the coffers of the Sheedy relatives. According to the statements of counsel for the defense nothing has been done in connection with this prosecution has met with their approval. They have found fault with the witnesses; they have complained that a reward has been offered. They have complained that people have been hired to testify in this case; aye, they have. I find, complained that the state has employed additional counsel to assist in this prosecution. Is there anything out of the way in employing assistant counsel in the prosecution of a great criminal case like this. Is it not done almost every month in the year. When Quin Bohannan was arraigned for murder, did not W. R. Kelly assist John [U?] Watson in the prosecution? Was not Mr. Strode one of the defendant's counsel in this case? So was he not in its second prosecution. Why, if I remember rightly in the trial of this case, counsel for the defense contented themselves with meeting the arguments advanced by the state as best they could. rather than complaining that additional counsel had been employed. And when my friend Woodward arose yesterday and presented his complaints in such a very forcible and dramatic manner, I began to fear that I should be eliminated from this case [?] the fast stages of it. You remember he was going to show you that we had no right to appear in this case. And from the emphasis with which he said that, I began to think my friend Lambertson and myself were to be eliminated about as thoroughly from this prosecution as the learned Judge Weir would have you believe yesterday, Mrs. Sheedy to be eliminated from this trial because no poison, he thought, had been found. Now this is an important case. It is one of the most important that, perhaps, any of you natural men will ever be called upon to decide. It has been a long tedious trial, but I think by the evidence we have finally spread out before your view, this will soon show that you can take hold of it, a piece at a time, analyze it, examine it reviewing carefully, see the drift and bearing of the evidence and the connection of these defendants with the murder of John Sheedy. And so far as I am concerned I would have you weigh carefully everything that has been said or told in connection with the evidence and arguments that have been given to you in this case. And remember that the state asks no conviction in this case unless we have convinced you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these parties are both guilty. And if we have convinced you, beyond a reasonable doubt, then we except you to meet your obligations like men. If is true that your verdict may affect the lives of two people, but remember that the lives of more people are at stake than the lives of these two defendants. Other people are innocent. These are not the only innocent people in this community. You must think of that. You must think that your oath and the law has imposed upon you a duty and an obligation as American citizens, and I believe that you will perform that duty manfully, fearlessly and conscientiously, whatever may be the result to the persons here before you.

It does not seem to me that the defense in this case ought to be heard to complain because the state, so far as it has been able, has exhausted every avenue for the purpose of apprehending the proper parties and gathering evidence with which to convince them. They have told you that private detectives were employed and that private rewards were offered. Is there anything wrong about that? Are we to be abused and slandered because we have employed detectives to apprehend criminals and father evidence together? Is it not always done? Do you remember of ever hearing of a murder case where rewards were not offered and where every effort was not made to gather the evidence together? Do you expect a community where a murder like this has been committed, to sit down quietly and give themselves no concern in regard to the matter? Must we stand like dumb cattle and make no effort to apprehend and punish the parties who have committed the murder in the midst of an enlightened, Christian, intelligent community? Don't forget that the fewest murders are committed where they are the most vigorously [presected?] and punished. And this is what has been attempted to be done in this case. And it has not been a very easy talk, I can assure you.

No we come down to the examination of the connection of these defendants with the murder of John Sheedy. This in some respects is a crime as we believe originated by a woman, being Monday McFarland as a tool for the purpose of carrying out the designs that she has hatched out in the silent hours of her meditation in her home, and our purpose shall be to show to you that Mrs. Sheedy is the guilty party and that Monday McFarland is no more than a pliant tool in her hands, used, perchance, for dealing the blow because he had the muscle to deal a more deadly blow than the woman.

I think Mrs. Sheedy had the nerve and the wicked intent of purpose and the heart to have stood opposite that door and slugged John Sheedy as he came out if she had had the physical strength to have done it. If you think for a moment that she did not have the courage you do not know the woman.

I must confess to you that Monday McFarland has some sympathy from me in this transaction. If ever I sympathized with a criminal arraigned here and being tried for murder in the first degree, it is Monday McFarland. I tell you frankly and I tell you candidly that my sympathy does go out for Monday McFarland--my sympathy goes out for any man who has lost the power of controlling his own desires and his own wishes in connection with a matter of this kind. While of course, nobody can excuse Monday McFarland for allowing himself to be need as an instrument of murder, while he ought to be punished. and I believe he will be, yet I am persuaded that this jury agrees with me that Monday McFarland had no murder in his heart until it was put there by this woman.

This murder of John Sheedy was not a murder in a fit of passion. It was not the murder of revenge. It was committed as a matter of pure dollars and cents. Now if you can find any palliating circumstances, any mitigating facts about a murder that has been concocted, that has been planned, that has been schemed for three or four months before it is carried out, apply them to Monday McFarland.

It seems to me that the attitude of Mrs. Sheedy in connection with this murder ought to be enough to paralyze the strongest heart, to break down the strongest mind, either male or female. Why in the name of God, look at the devastation that has been caused and spread behind this murder. Who was Monday McFarland when he was employed to commit this murder? You are told he was a barber, that he has a family. What is to become of him? To be hung? What is to become of his family, a widow and orphan children, with the father punished for crime? Why, it seems to me that the very thing itself ought to deter a woman or anybody from ever hiring a man who, so far as we know, had been an honest, upright citizen up to that time, to commit a murder, and for what? Aye, for the purpose of enabling this woman to satisfy a guilty love. Her's was the master hand, her's was the master mind, her's the genius that planned this murder and laid out the manner in which it should be carried out. It is beyond my comprehension how a man can get through the facts in [?] case honestly and carefully and reach any other conclusion. You do not believe for a moment that Monday McFarland went there and murdered the best friend he had on earth out of a spirit of revenge or in a mood of vengeance. No, you do not believe that.

You know there was a controlling power behind Monday McFarland. He tells you in his own evidence that he tried in every way upon earth to escape committing that murder. He had gotten into it so far that if he backed out he thought he was liable to be killed, and if he committed the murder he was liable to be murdered, so the poor devil was halting between two opinions. It mattered little to him which he did. He had not the power to resist the impulses that were instilled into his mind by this woman, yet he hesitated to commit the deed, and it was only when this woman had infused into his mind and heart the poison that was in hers; it was only when had infused into his mind the courage that was in hers; it was only when she was enabled to give a nerve of iron from her own, that he could muster up courage enough to commit this crime.

The able counsel who addressed you yesterday attempted to convince you that you should disregard this confession because, perchance, it was contrary to human nature. That nobody could read this confession and believe that a woman could so far forget her duties as a woman that she could fall so low, as to enter into a scheme of this kind. Did you ever hear of a, murder that sounded natural? Are not all murders unnatural? Man is not a natural murderer in his but I normal condition and in his natural

Highest of all in Leavening Power.--U.S. Gov't Report, Aug. 17, 1889.

Royal Baking

Powder

ABSOLUTELY PURE

state. You hear of a murder and look at the man and you say who would have thought that man would have done that. You look at another and say, it is utterly inscrutable. Human nature, I hail tonight. could not be so depraved--could not be so debased as to have committem such a diabolical crime.

That is always the case where a murder is committed. In almost every instance the community is shocked. The sensibilities are paralyzed, to hear of some of the crimes, committed by people you have known, to think that there could be lurking deadly murder in the heart of that man. I will confess that the boldness with which this crime was planned, and the boldness and skill with which it was carried out, is enough to make any ordinary man shrink from the very thought that such things can be. That a wife, living with her husband, in her presence, could deliberately and premeditatedly plan the murder of that man. I confess that there is something about this tragedy--something about this transaction, that at first makes it seem almost incredible that such a thing can be. But when we come to examine the evidence, and seeing this woman's connection with it, seeing her guilty connection with Walstrom; her hatred of her husband, learning something of the iron nerve and the iron will of this woman from her exhibition here before you in the past few weeks, I confess that then I and you shall be forced to enhance our minds and say that the outside conduct is not always a true index to the purposes working in the heart.

WHEREVER THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS ALWAYS A MOTIVE.

Whenever a crime is committed and and anybody is charged with it, you immediately commence looking for the motive. What was the motive in this case? Monday McFarland, as you see him here, is a colored man with a family; had been a barber in this town for a good man [?] years; so far as we know had never been accused of any crime; so far as we know had never murdered anybody; had been, so far as anything appears before this jury, about the same as any ordinary colored barber of a city of this kind would be. Now, what do we find? We find him budded out, in three or four months,into a full grown murderer. You have no doubt that Monday McFarland struck that blow. I don't believe there is a man on this jury that doubts that Monday McFarland dealt that deadly blow to John Sheedy. Now, if you believe that, what was it induced him to strike the blow? Nothing is shown but the best of feeling between Monday McFarland and John Sheedy, and Monday McFarland himself says he has always been a friend of his.

I will tell you what I think it was induced him to do it. I think it was the prisoner, Mrs. Sheedy; and how did she do it?

Why, she appeared to him in more alluring forms and shape than did satan when he tempted Christ on the mountain. She first holds up to him the alluring temptation of money. The price that he was to receive; the amount that was to be counted out for him, when would have made it a mere matter of dollars against ounces of blood. "Oh, most pernicious gift, can thus seduce." He did not take kindly to the scheme. Then, the next thing, after she had dazzled his eyes with the gold, and with the sparkling diamond, after she had dazed his senses with what he expected to receive--he was to become rich--her next step was to unfold to him her deplorable condition. She was abused: her husband had threatened her life, thus arousing the man's sympathy for a woman's wrongs. What next? Knowing that she must have this man in her power completely and absolutely, after she had appealed to his sympathy, after she had appealed to his cuoidity, after she had held up to his gaze the allurements of wealth to barter away for murder, she then offers to barter away her virtue and her womanhood: and for what? For the murder of her husband. Great God, was ever womanhood and virtue thus bartered away for such a commodity?

The defense will answer that by saying she did not allow this negro the privilege of her body. That she did not sell her womanhood and virtue for murder. If I did not believe that. I would not state it. If you take and read that confession, and show how she gradually unfolded this scheme to this man, it is just as natural as a, b, c. Tell me that a woman that has got murder in her heart would hesitate to sacrifice her virtue for its accomplishment. The negro, thus captivated by the woman, not only by premises of money, but by his sympathy for the woman in her wronged condition, as she said she was, where her husband had abused her and threatened to shoot her, then was added that stronger passion of affection for the woman, and then it was that this poor negro's manhood and self-control and self-possession departed, and from that day on he was nothing more nor less than a pliant tool in the hands of this woman. Didn't he tell you he went away not expecting to return, but when he went along the streets she called him in? He showed by his confession that he was trying to break away from the snares that had been thrown around him? He says himself that he was vacillating back there. As I said before, he had gotten into the net so deep it was easier, to go forward than it was to go back, and so he did. His very conduct shows that. It tells you when he got there to strike the blow his arm was unnerved, and immediately upon striking the blow the cane flew from his hand. He feel down as he was trying to get away from there. His mind was paralyzed with fear, and he was almost unable to get away from there at first.

Now, how was he worked up to this deed? He was coached, he was prodded, he was coerced, he was pushed with all the pressure that a determined woman could command, to force him to commit this deed. But, you say, would Mrs. Sheedy do it? Why should she hire a man to murder her husband? She must have had some motive. Aye. that was true, and that motive was a double one.

In the first place I desire to call your attention to this [lack?] that morning seemed to be wrong in the Sheedy mansion until this woman had formed the acquaintance of Walstrom. With her acquaintance with him commenced the domestic trouble between Sheedy and her. Mrs. Sheedy transferred her affections to another man, and if the truth could be known, if some one here could tell the whole truth in connection with her relations with John Sheedy they would tell a different story from anything you have hear yet. They would tell you that woman loathed and despised John Sheedy, so that his very [tones?] was repulsive and a punishment to her. This commenced with her acquaintance with Walstrom. Following up the acquaintance with Walstrom which was begun there in Buffalo, N. Y. Walstrom soon comes to Nebraska.

What was about the first thing she tells Monday McFarland? That there is a man coming to take her away. Do you believe that? How do you think Monday McFarland would have started that, to have told such a story as that? He had forgotten the man's name. And when mentioned to him he says, "Ues, Walstrom is the name."

Do you think for a moment that Judge Weir can wipe the relations of Mrs. Sheedy and Walstrom out by simply telling you that it was an ordinary friendship. I am led to believe from the face of Judge Weir that he is not in the habit of inculcating such doctrines as that in his own family. You would not think from his appearance that he would advocate such discipline as that in his family. And I am persuaded from the appearance of the gentleman that he does not. Do you think that that was simply a passing friendship? Why, the able counsel tells you that, and that at the merry Christmas, when it is customary to give presents and receive them. [?] was only an innocent, a purely, innocent and harmless fact, the presentation by Mrs. Sheedy to Walstrom of nightshirts.

I hadn't she grown pretty familiar in a very short space of time? Have you heard of her presenting any other friends with night shirts on that occasion? Was there nobody in the city of Lincoln with whom she had been acquainted longer and more ultimately than with Mr. Walstrom? Johnny Klausner had been a young man around the house for a long time. Did she send him nay hose, neckties, or any night-shirts, or any ring pouches? Why, it seems that Walstrom was the only man on God's earth that Mrs. Sheedy had thought enough of and known long enough and known intimately enough to make numerous presents to on Christmas day. Have you heard of her making any presents to her husband, John Sheedy? If that great and glad day of Christmas had impressed itself upon this woman's mind so as to arouse her with its generosity to her friends, why in the name of God didn't she make her own husband some presents instead of Walstrom? Nothing wrong about a married woman making presents to a mane she had met in Buffalo three months before? Is that the kind of decorum and good order that a man is to adopt in his own household? How did she know who Walstrom was, where he came from, or what kind of a man he was, if she had only casually met him in the hospital in Buffalo, N. Y.

If she had met him only as she meets other people here, why was abe so soliticious to have young Klausner room with him when he came here? Had she ever hunted anyone to room with Johnny Klausner when he was there at the house that you heard of? Wa she so solicitous about anybody else other than Walstrom? And yet they tell you there is nothing wrong about this, merely giving presents to a young friend in the shape of neckties, in the shape of hose, in the shape of a ring pouch, and in the shape of night-shirts. Why, it is true it is no crime for a woman to give anybody night shirts, or to give him presents of these other articles, there is nothing criminal in that. She had bought them and paid for them. They were hers, she could bestow them where she pleased, but don't you think three clothes were where the woman's afectious were, and if they [?], why had a married woman like Mrs. Sheedy any right, any lawful right, or any right in good morals, to be carrying on such conduct as that? Nothing wrong about that? What about the correspondence with Walstrom? Nothin wrong about that? Well, no, it is strange. I concede the fact that a married woman may write a man a letter or she may write him several letters. That, in itself, is no crime: but what we complain of is the contents of the letters. Had John Sheedy ever know of this clandestine correspondence? Tell me that. The man had been to Sheedy's house; had been seen out riding with him; had dined there; yet that John Sheedy knew this clandestine correspondence was being carried on between his wife and this importation from Birmingham, Alabama.

Now if there was nothing wrong about these letters the easiest way to settle the question was to show them to the jury Walstrom has got her letters, she has got his letters. Why doesn't Walstrom come to the front here and say, "Here are the letters Mrs. Sheedy wrote to me. I am willing their contents should be known to the world." Again, were the letters addressed to anybody? Did thy pass through the mails like Mrs. Sheedy a correspondences with other people, directed, stamped and mailed? No. Why? She thought it safer to have a private courier to carry her mail. Nothing wrong about all of this? Mere friendly correspondence with a gentleman friend? Counsel for the defense will say, has it come to this that a married woman cannot have a gentleman correspondent? Do not allow yourselves to be missed by any such trash as that. It is not the correspondence, it is the [?] manner in which it was carried on that puts the stamp of guilt upon it. Had she to solicitude for Walstrom? Why, about the first thing she did after Sheedy was assaulted was to send word to Walstrom. Didn't she have a more intimate friend in the city to whom she could have sent word?

She knew Courtnay was the bosom friend of Mr. Sheedy. She knew Lew Franklin was the lifelong friend of her husband. Did she send the courier to him? No, Walstrom was the only man that she thought was interested in knowing that John Sheedy had been murdered.

There is an old saying, I believe, that is fraught with great truth. That is the proposition that "murder will out." It is true that crime may go unpunished for a time, but tardy justice will o'ertake it soon. So in this case, there was the fatal mistake that was made in connection with this murder, like every other murder, [almost?]. There was the terrible mistake that Mrs. Sheedy made when she entrusted the murder of her husband to Monday McFarland. When she thought that Monday McFarland's mind could be made the safe storehouse for that secret. There is where she made the mistake. There is where she made a blunder in thinking that such a diabolical crime as that could be [?cked] in the mind of Monday Mc

_________________________________________________________________________

(Continued on [Sicth?] Page.)