Gilded Age Newspaper Articles

A STARLING ARRAIGNMENT

(Continued From Fifth Page.)

Farland and nobody should ever know if it.

Great God, in all this universe, has not made a single nook or corner where can be ever safely hid the crime of murder. The human mind is so situated that murder in the mind and heart is repugnant to every other natural faculty or natural thought. It is at war with all your desires. It is at war with your very nature, and when a man thinks he can commit murder and because, forsooth, he does it in the night, when no man sees, when no man knows, that therefore it is locked from the world in his own brain and heart, he makes a mistake.

Why that secret was in Monday McFarland's mind. It had coursed through his blood. It had permeated ever fiber of his body. It beamed in his eye. It was in his countenance, so that he thought that every man, woman and child who saw him could see it; could read it in his face; could detect it in his eye. He knew he was suspected. He knew that 1,000 eyes were searching and looking upon every inspiration and every [net?]; till the secret took possession of him and lend him where it would. This was why Monday McFarland made the confession. That confession forced itself out of him. It broke down his manhood, it paralyzed his soul, until the only relief that Monday McFarland could see was to unburden his mind of that deadly inhabitant. And that is why he told it. He told it, not because he was afraid of Jim Malone nor the mob, but because he knew he was guilty. It was an unwelcome occupant of his mind. And I will venture the assertion that he never felt so good since this murder as when he had vomited forth his awful confession. When he had got rid of it, got it off his mind, got it off his heart. Then is the first time that Monday McFarland straightened up and felt that he was a man again and could breathe. He had been oppressed and could not sleep. Do you think you could sleep, gentlemen, were such a load as that on your mind, the first night after doing the deed? Do you think you could be composed or collected? That part of the programmeseems to have been left to Mrs. Sheedy. She is the only cool, calm, collected, indifferent, serene person in this prosecution. Why, from her conduct during this trial you would be led to think she was not one of the people on trial. So calm, collected and serene, so absolutely unconcerned relative to this prosecution is she, that you would think it was not her. She has played her part well. But remember while she was playing that part, she omitted to play the part of the heartbroken, grief-stricken wife. While that part of the programme has been well maintained, I ask you whether her conduct in this court room during this trial has been that of the loving, affectionate, broken-hearted, bowed-down woman, whose husband has been brutally murdered. It is a pretty difficult thing to play a double part. It is pretty difficult to be a woman of iron nerve and to be a loving, affectionate wife at the same time. To brace up, to be resolute, to be firm, to be undaunted. Why the defendants would have you believe that nobody could mention John Sheedy's name without tears would gush forth and this woman would weep and mourn, filled with emotion. Has she manifested any of that here? No, she was playing another part. Do you think the woman that lost her husband and was broken hearted on account of his murder, do you think a woman of that kind can sit here undaunated and unconcerned under what has been going on in this case.

Mr. Hall then said that he would spend no time in answering the argument that the confession was not voluntary and thought that the defense could much more appropriately have offered to prove that it was not true.

He took up the confession and showed how in countless instances it was corroborated by the testimony. Anna Bodenstein corroborated it in that Monday went often to dress Mrs. Sheedy's hair. Mrs. Hood and Mrs. Carpenter corroborated it in that they had seen Walstrom's picture in the photograph album. And Mr. Hall dwelt upon the fact that Monday knew this as proof that Mrs. Sheedy had taken him into her parlo, told him of her lover and showed him the picture.

Monday's confession was corroborated by the finding of the gold ring he said she had given him; by the testimony of Goldwater and son as to the purchase of the cane and by its identification, agreeing with him even as to the price: by testimony of Goldwater and son as to the purchase of the cane and by its identification, agreeing with him even as to the price; by the testimony of Mrs. Sheedy when she told of having gone out to get a pitcher ofwater on the night of the assault; by her own testimony as to the window curtain of the east window; also by Tyndall; by Stepney, Monday's cousin, and Mattie McNeal, as to the exchange of overcoats; by the same witness as to his going to George Botts' after the murder, getting his wife and going home; by William Chinn as to his subsequent whereabouts that night, and his lameness from his fall just after he struck the blow; by Courtnay and Anna Bodenstein that he went to the Sheedy house next day to see Mrs. Sheedy and get part of his reward; by Mrs. Coil to the effect that he had hund around the Sheedy residence [aw srang?] a chance to commit the crime; try Mr. and Mrs. Hosman to the effect that he fell down at the corner of the porch after he fired the shot early in December. These ate but a few of the many details which Mr. Hall showed that Monday's story was corroborated by the other testimony.

The speaker, before closing his address of over three hours, denied that a dollar of Dennis Sheedy's money had ever been illegitimately used to secure conviction, and contended that it was but natural for a man to seek to avenge the death of his brother.

Mr. Stearns for Mary Sheedy.

Mr. Stearns in opening at 3:55 congratulated himself and the court upon the fact that so many ladies were present, as it was undoubtedly sure to inure to the inforcement of justice tempered with mercy. He dwelt upon the fact that Malone, Doctor Childs and others had been around strengthening the suspicions of Mrs. Sheedy's guilt, so that the poor grief-stricken widow would get none of the estate of her dead husband. Dennis Sheedy is not here, it is true, but his money is here and serving every purpose that his presence could serve. The defendant was unable to please the prosecution. If she shed tears one of the counsel called them deceitful, crocodile tears. If she was calm the other attorney said she was unfeeling and a woman of iron nerve.

Mr. Stearns then offered to read from Judge Maxwell as to the duty of a public prosecutor, but the state objected and the court ruled it out, to which the defense excepted. He contended that the duty of a public prosecutor was as much to prevent the persecution of the innocent as it was to secure the punishment of the guilty, but in this instance the county attorney had sat there like a bound boy without an effort to direct the case and taken a secondary part in the proceedings.

He denounced the sort of brotherly affection spoken of by opposing counsel as having been exhibited by Dennis Sheedy. The $550 he had put in bank to her credit had been obtained by the transfer of some property he had no authority to transfer; he had taken away John Sheedy's gold watch, worth $300 or $400, and all of the dead man's clothing.

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

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

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

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

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

He referred to the discrepancy in the state's own testimony as to whether the curtain of the east window was up or down immediately after the shooting.

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

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

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

He took the testimony of the three witnesses of the state who had told of the unhappy relations of Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy. Mrs. Hood, Mrs. Swift and Johnie Klausner, and tore it to pieces to show that it lacked positiveness.

This testimony was of entirely too flimsy a character upon which to rest a motive for the crime of murder.

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

At 5:30 Mr. Stearns stopped and court adjourned until 9 a. m. to-day, when he will resume. He will be followed by Messrs. Philpott and Strode; so that Mr. Lambertson will probably not close until to-morrow.

Ice cream and strawberries at Trinity M. E. church to-night.

Children Cry for Pitcher's Castoria.

EAGER TO HEAR THE CLOSE

A MULTITUDE AT THE SHEEDY TRIAL.

Three Advocates for the Defense Consume the Entire Day in Appeals to the Jury.

Juror James Johnson Causes an Adjournment by Illness--Strode and Lambertson Have an Exciting Spat and the Court Interferes.

To-day Will Close the Argument.

Lincoln's magnificent court house has been tried and found wanting. Its large and handsome law court room was by far too small to furnish accommodations for the crowds of Indies and gentlemen who assembled there yesterday to listen to the arguments in the greatest criminal trial in point of public interest ever held in the state of Nebraska. Long ere :he opening morning hour hundreds of the choicest seats were taken, and the session had not far advanced ere every seat was taken and the aisles were full of standing people willing to forego all comforts and conveniences if only they might hear the pleas advanced for the lives of the two unfortunate and widely contrasted prisoners at the bar. A bevy of ladies were even seated in the private office of Judge Field listening to the impassioned arguments through the open door. which commanded a near and direct view of the jury, the creators and the prisoners.

Bailiff Lou Franklin was at his wits' end and the perspiration steamed from his furrowed brow as he hastened hither and thither guarding the entrance to the inner circle, and at the same time gallantly endeavoring to see that the ladies were accommodated with seats as far as the seating capacity of the room would permit. Finally he gave up in despair, and instead of hunting seats for them [he?] was compelled to devote his entire energies to prevent them from overcrowding the space usually reserved to the court and attorneys, but which, during the later progress of this case, has been given up reservedly to the use of the ladies, who have encircled the august tribunal daily with banks of fair faces peering out from a varied assortment of the choicest and richest work of the milliner's art. All of the ladies, old and young, rich and poor, white, yellow and black, have evinced a desire to perch as near as possible to the throne of justice and the supplicant thereat. And when the ladies start with such an aim and determination, there is no gainsaying them. They are sure to get there. It was noticeable that few of them sought an entrace by the great door freely open to the common herd until they exhausted every chance of getting a place in the inner circles.

At the afternoon session there was a crowd that was truly remarkable. All over the vast court room was presented a sea offices, those of the fair sex apparentlypredominating. All around the walls were banks of humanity pressed too closely together for comfort or convenience. The wide aisle at the doors was crowded with ladies who had arrived too late to secure seats but just in time to shut out great numbers of still less fortunate ladies who had come too late to even get in.

Expressions of approbation were yesterday more frequent than at any former period and the bailiff's duties were therefore the more onerous. His stern rap for silence was frequently heard above the timid applause occasionally indulged. It is said that human sympathy ever goes out to one accused of crime and that popular applause is always in favor of one who defends rather than one who prosecutes a person changed with crime. It is apparent too, that there are many people who are prepared to doubt any proof that a woman of such prepossessing appearance and manners as Mrs. Sheedy could ever be guilty of the crimes sought to be laid at her door." Hence it was that when there were any expressions of approbation it was one expressive of sympathy for Mrs. Sheedy, in which poor Monday McFarland could claim no share of comfort or encouragement.

There was the usual flutter in the audience when Mrs. Sheedy came into court yesterday morning but neither she nor her sisters appeared to observe that they were the center of interest. She was accompanied by Uncle Biggerstaff. Mrs. Morgan and Mrs. Dean, Mrs. Baker had evidently not fully recovered from the effects of the fainting fit which had occasioned her removal from the court room during the previous evening, and did not appear during the morning session. Neither did her husband. They both came in with the party, however, at the afternoon session, but remained but a few minutes. The strain is evidently proving too much for Mrs. Baker, who is said to be subject to such attacks as overcome her on Tuesday. On each occasion it was evident that the calm, pale, sad face of the defendant made a deep impression upon the sympathetic multitude and excited no little admiration. She maintained the utmost composure throughout the day and even the eloquence and earnestness of the three attorneys who spoke in her behalf did not move her to tears or gain the slightest recognition in looks or expression. She appeared to be simply indifferent.

Monday McFarland preceded her each time into the court room. He was accompanied by two or three colored ladies, among them being his wife. He appeared to be equally unmoved by the eloquence and pathos of the attorneys, who recounted again and again the detail of his confession in their efforts to discredit its import and impeach its competency as evidence.

Mrs. Stearns Resumes.

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

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

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

The speaker indignantly refuted the assertion of Mr. Hall that "John Sheedy had died there in his own home like a dog."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Afternoon Session.

The hands of the clock pointed the hour of 2 p. m. when order was invoked by Deputy Sherriff Hoagland. The court room was crowded with the beauty and duty. fashion of the city, long tiles of the ladies having come in early in order to secure seats. When the prisoners came in the hush that had prevailed gave place to a gentle stir of excitement. Colonel Philpott paced the floor in front of the jury box with bowed head, his hands folded behind him, and an unlighted cigar between his fingers. He was mustering his facts for the final unslaught.

When the jury returned into court it was noticed that Juror Johnston had so improved that he appeared to be enjoying himself over his good health and smilingly whispered to his confre[res?] in the box.

Colonel Philpott Concludes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colonel Philpott closed his argument with a forcible explanation of his refusal to permit Monday to turn state's evidence, and said that he had in his thirty-five years of practice never perjured himself or been guilty of subordination of perjury, and she would never have permitted his client to perjury his soul to hang that woman.

Colonel Philpott's remarks were of the most earnest, forcible character, well

EXPOSITION DEPARTMENT STORES.

J.Z. BRISCOE, THE SHOE MAN

Has just received an invoice of Strong and Carroll's Men's Kangaroo Oxfords, all sizes and widths. Also a complete line of Edson Ladies' Ties at prices ranging form $1.50 to $4.50: On Monday mornings at 9 o'clock the following goods will be put on sale at the prices named

FOR THREE DAYS ONLY:

72 pairs patent Cox welt, former price $4, at $3.25,

55 pairs patent Cox hand turned, former price $5 at $4.

47 pairs patent Cox Wakenphasts, former price $3.50, at $2.50.

17 pairs Drew & Selby hand turned, former price $5, at $4.25.

22 pairs Minnesota, former price $6, at $4.26.

23 pairs Gray Bros.' Wakenphasts, former price $4.50 at $3.50.

19 pairs Gray Bros.' New York Welts, former price $5 at $4.

18 pairs Moore & Shafer de prie, former price $[3?].50 at $2.75.

92 pairs Indies' and misses' fine Turns, left over from Sherwin's bankrupt stock, at half price.

Remember the place, Shoe Department, Exposition Building. Terms of this sale positively cash. We are overstocked with these fine goods and must sell.

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

Mr. Strode Begins His Argument.

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

He criticised in a pathetic manner the comments made upon the deportment of the defendant. If she had cried the gentlemen of the press had said that she had broken down. If she nerved herself to bear the ordeal the counsel for the state had said she was a hardhearted woman. He had had a great deal of experience in that line of the law, but he had never known of any case where any human being had ever had nearly so terrible an ordeal to bear as had this defendant. He directed his criticisms especially at Mr. Lambertson and said that should that gentleman ever have a daughter or a sister on trial he hoped no man would ever find the cruelty in his heart to say such words as he had spoken of Mary Sheedy. He said that the bitterness of the prosecution had been apparent, and that had John Sheedy left no estate of value it would not have been so. He said that ever since the death of John Sheedy the press of the city had published some of the most damnable lies ever uttered against a human being. He reverted to the statements made concerning her sisters, and said that even they, whom he invited the jury to observe as they sat beside her in court, had been vilely slandered by the press. No rumor had been so utterly damnable or baseless concerning Mary Sheedy and her family that it had not found ready repetition in the public press. He recalled the fact that during his work as a prosecutor one of the first cases he had ever had in this court was against John Sheedy. John Sheedy was then the prisoner at the bar, just as Mary Sheedy is now. He did not attempt to justify murder, but when Mr. Snell and Mr. Hall stood up in court and alluded to John Sheedy as a pioneer whose removal was a great calamity to the community, and the loss of a benefactor, and that he died there like a dog in his own home, he wanted to say that because of John Sheedy many a wife had been treated like a dog in her own home.

He criticised severely the action of Dennis Sheedy in failing to return for examination by the defense in accordance with the promise of counsel for the state. He dwelt with great fervor upon the failure of the state to introduce Dennis Sheedy, jr. who lived at the house and was present during the tragedy, and who was certainly an important witness, although his name was endorsed upon the back of the information and although the state had the entire wealth of the Sheedy estate behind them, while the defense had been denied even the $83 per month allowed by the state. The defense had a right to expect them both to be here, as they had been endorsed on the information. He said that Dennis Sheedy, sr., had not appeared because he knew the domestic relations of John Sheedy and his wife; because John Sheedy had recently told him how happily he had been living with his wife; he had not been put on the stand because he had settled up John Sheedy's affairs after his death, had gone and settled with the gamblers and got his money from the safe, and nobody knew how much money there was in that safe,

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

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

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

"Mr. Strode," said the court, "confine your remarks to the evidence."

Some further remarks between the attorneys led to a retort from Mr. Lambertson that Mr. Strode had got the $550 that came from the gamblers, and put it down in his pocket, and had no right to object to gamblers. Mr. Strode came back vigorously and told how he had been compelled to use that money in payment of the Sheedy debts, mentioning a number of debts he had paid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Aye, in Monday's confession, so it is," fairly shouted Mr. Strode. "And you know as well as I know that Monday McFarland's confession is not permitted as evidence against Mary Sheedy. You have been trying Mary Sheedy all through this case upon Monday McFarland's confession, when the court has already told yu that it was no evidence against this defendant. It was the burden of the arguments of Mr. Hall and Mr. Snell, although they knew very well that the court will instruct the jury that that confession is not to weigh against Mary Sheedy. Why didn't you go to the records to show that Mary Sheedy married John Sheedy for his money? Can you find any record that John Sheedy had any money or property nine years ago? If you can why didn't you do it. There is nothing to show how much wealth John Sheedy had when this defendant married him or where or what it was. She may have helped her husband to accumulate this fortune now estimated at $60,000 or $70,000. and yet you say that she shall not now have a single dollar of it. if you can help it. Who can show that Mary Sheedy married John Sheedy for his money?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He will accordingly resume this morning. Mr. Lambertson will follow him with the closing argument for the state. It is generally expected that the addresses of both will be remarkably strong ones and there will be a scramble for place in that court room.

Assuming that Mr. Strode will consume at least one hour. Mr. Lambertson will hardly be able to close by noon. Fellowing his address will be the court's instructions to the jury, which will very probably be somewhat voluminous, and the case will hardly be given to the jury before 3 or 4 o'clock.

__________________________________

Mrs. Debowes, ladies' nurse and attendant, 327 North Elevenths street.

Medicines that pretend to do the work of S.S.S. The effects of S.S.S. most of them are worse than the diseases they pretend to cure. There is but one permanent cure for contagious blood poison, and that is to be found in S.S.S. And it is the only S.S.S. medicine that will S.S.S. permanently destroy the effects of

MERCURIAL AND [POTASH?] POISONING.

It is a purely vegetable remedy, curtirely harmless, and yet it is the most potent blood purifier ever discovered.

Book on Blood and Skin Diseases Free.

THE SWIFT SPECIFIC CO., Atlanta, Ga.

Youthilens

Is a European Face [?]tion. It [?] [All of this paragraph?]

Notice for Hide. Notice is hereby given that the city [?] [?] Lincoln, Neb. will receive [rest of paragraph?]

[Last 2 Sections?]

ALL RESTS WITH THE JURY

CLOSE OF ARGUMENT IN THE SHEEDY CASE.

Mr. Strode Brings His Brilliant, Earnest Plea for the Life of His Client to a Thrilling Close.

And Mr. Lambertson Reviews the History of the Crime With Telling Eloquence and Vigor-Bracing Up the Jury.

A Passionate Outburst of Counsel.

Never in the history of the city has public interest in any event been so thoroughly demonstrated as was yesterday the interest in the Sheedy case. People began to arrive at the court house before 8 o'clock, hoping thereby to secure desirable seats ere court opened at 9. As the hour of opening approached long lines of people were to be seen pouring from every direction en route to the court house. Every neighboring hitching post was brought into service for the tethering of horses and vehicles. At 9 o'clock it was almost impossible to crowd one's way through the court room. No regard was paid to the railing enclosing the large space usually allotted to the court and the bar. Every foot of standing room even in that large court chamber was filled, and more than filled. The ladies, who largely predominated, had invaded the very steps of the throne of justice, and Judge Field's platform was flanked on either side by banks of feminine faces and gay and fluttering headgear. If there was a single inch of vacant space in all that crowded room outside of the few square feet in front of the jury box, it was impossible to locate it by a view form the judicial dais. Even the defendants were brought into uncomfortable proximity with the eager throngs, whose chairs were crowded directly up against them. No such assemblage of beauty, fashion, walth, intelgence, mixed with their various reverses, has ever been witnessed in a Lincoln court of justice, or anything nearly approaching it, while hundreds were turned away, not because the doors were closed, but because it was utterly impossible to push one's way in. There was a musical but deafening hum of conversation as the jostling, pushing audience pushed into more or less uncomfortable positions, content even with the poorest accommodations, gald even that they were permitted to stand up to see and hear the proceedings. Such an audience was well calculated to bring out every latent power of logic and eloquence from the brains and lips of the gifted counsel, and most truly did it exert its full capabilities in that line. There were old ladies and old gentlemen there, whose wrinkled: visages and white locks had never adorned so impressive a scene. There were young men and youths who were ardent in their views on the case. young and fasionable misses and young girls stood along in rows and viewed with critical eyes the raiment of each other. Hundreds of married ladies were there looking out for the best seats, [fluttering?] their fans and holding themselves in readiness to be touched to tears. Their readiness in that direction was brought to frequent proof.

It was a little remarkable that with such a multitude crowded and pressed into so slight a space the order throughout the day was, with one exception, beyond criticism or reproof. Only once was the court called upon to indulge an admonition. That [?] audience was most thoroughly impressed with the gravity and solemnity of the situation, and the stillness of death reigned through most of the day, broken only by the impassioned pleadings of the counsel to the jury. The crowd in the afternoon to hear the closing argument of Mr. Lambertson was simply beyond description. So dense was it that one middle-aged lady standing up in the aisle fainted late in the afternoon and it was actually impossible to take her out. So intent was the crowd on hearing Judge Field's instructions to the jury, then being delivered, that few noted the incident and those in the immediate vicinity, with the assistance of [Bailiff?] Taylor, applied restoratives and in a few minutes had her so that she could sit up and renew her interest in the proceedings.

When Mrs. Sheedy came into court in the morning her sisters fairly carried her along the narrow passage made for her through the crowd. She was evidently very ill and weak. Her attorneys had consulted as to the advisability of bringing in a couch for her, but the stout-hearted, resolute little woman had insisted that she would be equal to the ordeal. As she came in it looked as if her attendant's support was all that kept her from reeling and falling to the floor. During the pathetic argument of Mr. Strode she alternated between expression of tearful grief and sorrow and those of absolute exhaustion. During the afternoon session while Mr. Lambertson was relentlessly picturing the evidences of her guilt and arraigning her in no tender terms and tones for the crime charged against her, her old calm and determined strength appeared to have returned. She resolutely faced the counsel and jury; but no expression of feeling, of approval or disapproval, was seen to [flit?] across her pallid face through all that terrible impeachment, and when she left the court room she walked erect and firm and a hearing that indicated the dauntless spirit that has marked her demeanor through the twenty-two days of the trial. Mrs. Morgan and Mrs. Dean joined in her tears at the mention of their mother, and were much more easily moved to tears than was she.

Monday McFarland wore the same dazed, stolid expression he has worn since the argument of the case began. He appears to realize that there is absolutely no hope for him. The sympathetic appeals made to the jury have had no reference to him. He has had to gain all the consolation vouchsafed him in the arguments from the effort of his consel to prove him a negro who was much abused in order to get him to confess and a monumental liar when he did so. He has seen his counsel contending that his confession could in no way implicate Mary Sheedy even though it consigned him to the gallows. And he realises the meaning of it all. He has had the finger of denunciation pointed at him time and again as the murderer of John Sheedy, but his sodden eyes evinced no sign of fear or recognition. He sits surrounded by a group of colored women, but he never appears to be aware of their presence.

Mr. Strode's Last Urgent Appeal.

Every breath of sound in that crowded room vanished when Mr. Strode stepped before the jury to resume the argument he had begun the previous evening. He recounted briefly the points he had made on opening ere he branched off into a correction of Mr. Hall's reference to "the murder of King Claudius." In the latter connection he said that as he remembered having read the story, King Claudius was not murdered, but that [?] was his brother, King Hamlet.

Mr. Strode then recounted a well known case in Vermont where two brothers had confessed to having murdered a brother-in-law, were convicted and were about to be executed years after the missing man's disappearance, when by mere chance the latter was discovered living in New Jersey. He also referred to the case of Windnagel, the Randolph street butcher, who at tempted suicide, to prove the unreliability of circumstantial evidence, contending that his room-mate, Kyle, would probably have been convicted of his murder, had he not recovered. He detailed these two cases with all the fervor he could command to impress the jury with a lack of faith in confessions and circumstantial evidence.

Then he took up Monday's confession, reiterating the statement with emphasis that it could not weigh, under the law, against his [client?], Mary Sheedy, and recounted all of the inducements that had been held out to Monday to induce him to confess, contending that neither of the confessions were voluntary and were therefore not admissable in evidence.

In turning his attention to the work of detectives he referred to the alleged fact that Pinkerton man had been brought here from Chicago in order that no stone would be left unturned to hound down Mary Sheedy, in order that her portion of the Sheedy estate might go to the Sheedy heirs. He thought it very appropriate with the line of this prosecution that a [Pinkerton?] man should be brought here for that purpose, Mr. Hall, of counself for the state, was a member of the law firm of Marquett, Deweese & Hall, who were attorneys for the B. & M. railroad in Nebraska. It would probably be remembered that these Pinkerton men had been called upon before to do work in Nebraska, and for that company.

Mr. Hall was promptly upon his feet at this utterance and it was evident that he was indignant;

"Now, your honor, I think there is no such testimony as that in this court, and I think that such a statement ought to be severely condemned by this court. Such a statement concerning the C., B. & Q. railroad is made with the hope of unfairly and unlawfully influencing this jury, some of whom may belong to the farmers' alliance, and I want to brand it as cowardly, unmanly, unwarranted, and unprofessional."

The speaker, for the first time since the opening of the case, evinced anger in his face, and his fervor increased as he proceeded until the court broke in with "That will do Mr. Hall, Mr. Strode there is no such fact as that in evidence."

"Your honor, Johnnie Klausner testified that a Pinkerton detective was employed-"

"Yes, but there was nothing about their employment by the C. B. & Q."

"I will admit, your honor, that that was rather outside of the evidence."

"I had hoped, Mr. Strode, that you would endeavor to be fair in your argument. You have tried the case fairly so far, and I dislike to see you mar it in your argument. Please refrain from any further statements of that character."

Mr. Strode then called attention to the eminent counsel which had been employed to prosecute his client, insinuating that it was apparent thereby that he was being persecuted so that the Shedy heirs would profit by it. He called attention to Mr. Lambertson's wide reputation as a public prosecutor, having been engaged in that line for mony years in the United States. He told [of?] his services in liberating the city council from imorisonment in the Grandpa [Burris?] case, and told of his apaointment as prosecutor for the interstate commerce commission. He declared him to be eminent for his qualifications in that line; eulogized Messra. Hall and Snell and said that when he thought of the counsel engaged in the prosecution he trembled for his client He warned the jury not to be misled by the eloquence and sophistry of counsel to condemn his client.

Mr. Strode then called for the ring which had been introduced in evidence as one which Monday in his confession had said that Mrs. Sheedy had given him. Its production was the beginning of a dramatic scene.

"Mr. Hall," said he, "called your attention to the fact that Monday McFarland's confession was corroborated by a ring found in a pawn shop. Now I ask you what evidence is there that Mrs. Sheedy ever owned such a ring? There was no evidence that went to show that against Mrs. Sheedy. You cannot consider that confession against her. Yes, they stand here by the hour telling you of things that are in McFarland's confession. He says she placed that ring on his finger and the ring was identified as found at a pawn shop. What mark is there upon it? Nobody should say it was Mary Sheedy's ring or ever had been, and the pawnbroker tells you that the ring had no mark upon it except the fineness of the gold of which it was made. That he put a ticket upon it. McGarland says in his confession this is the one Mary Sheedy gave him, yet there is not a scintilla of evidence that Mary Sheedy ever owned such a ring. I do not believe she ever owned such a ring. I do not believe [svch?] a ring ever had any existence except in the imagination of Monday McFarland. I don't believe he ever got it of mary Sheedy.

"Put that ring on your finger," said Mr. Strode, advancing with extended hand toward the prisoner.

In a moment Mr. Lambertson was upon his feet protesting:

"Your honor, we object to that. That would be getting evidence from Monday McFarland unfairly. Why didn't they put him on the stand if they wanted his evidence? We would have been glad to have them do so. If they persist in this unfair attempt to secure evidence from him we shall contend for the right to cross-examine him."

"It occurred to me when I tried to place it on my finger that it is not Monday McFarland's ring. It would scarcely go on any finger. Look at that man, look at his size, and tell me if he has a finger that ring would go on? Yet they try to affect Mrs. Sheedy by saying Monday McFarland had a ring that she had placed upon his finger."

He got warmer as he talked and seemed to have just made an important discovery.

"You have been playing some kind of jugglary on me, some trickery with [this?] ring. Then there is this hair. Mr. Hall tells in his argument, why don't you prove this is not Mary Sheedy's hair. Doubtless it may be a part of her hair.

McFarland was combing her hair and dressing her hair. She did not deny that. There is no evidence but what that had been done. And if that were true, how easy it was for him to have obtained some of her hair in combing it and dressing it. And he could have saved some of the combings if he wanted to. Whether he did or not, i don't know. This lock of her hair looks to me, darker than any hair I have ever seen on Mary Sheedy's head. I simply ask you to look at it. These detectives have been working up this testimony," and he laid the darker [tress?] against Mrs. Sheedy's golden bangs while she sat resignedly with eyes upon the floor.

"We object to that, your honor. That would be putting her upon the stand, and when that is done we want the opportunity to cross exxamine her."

"You can't sneak testimony in that way which you were afraid to introduce by the proper method, and when you charge that we have manufactured testimony I denounce you as an infamous liar."

"Go on, Mr. Lambertson, you can't scare me," calmly replied Mr. Strode.

"Gentlemen, that will do," sternly admonished the court. "There is no occasion for any such language as this. Mr. Lambertson, I am surprised that you use such language in court. There is nothing courageous in calling a man a liar in court, and I want to say that you have committed an ungentlemanly and unprofessional act."

The crowd burst into applause at the severity of the court's admonition, attested by the clapping of hands and murmurs of approval. This renewed the displeasure of the court, and Judge Field seriously and somewhat feelingly threatened to clear the court room if there was such another demonstration.

"This is too serious a trial to permit of any such expressions. Nothing that is said here is intended for the benefit of the audience, or for its approval or disapproval, and if this audience cannot remain quiet it must be cleared from the room."

Mr. Strode re-echoed the sentiments of the court.

ALL RESTS WITH THE JURY (Continued From Fifth Page.) ------------------------------------------------- prosecution of the murderer. Had you a partnr struck down dastardly and relentlessly by an assasain what would you do? Would not you sped sufficient money

ALL RESTS WITH THE JURY

(Continued From Sixth Page.)

necessary to give direct and positive proof what is the quantity which would destroy life, nor is it necessary to prove that such a quantity was found in the body of the deceased. It is sufficient if the jury are satisfied by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that death was caused by poison of some kind, and that the poison was administered by the parties charged with the intention of causing death.

"The next branch of the case to which I would call your attention is the alleged confessions and statements made by the defendant, Monday McFarland. Whatever may be your conclusion concerning these statements and confessions, so far as they may relate to the defendant McFarland himself, you are instructed that the law is that where two persons or more are together charged with the commission of a crime, or in any case where any one person charged with a crime makes statements connecting himself or any other or others with the commission thereof, then under no circumstances can the confessions or statements so made be considered or used as evidence against any person other than the one making the confessions or statements. So in this case, however, you may decide as to the defendant, McFarland, the confessions and alleged statements that it has been testified to that he made cannot in any degree or measure be considered by you or allowed to weigh against the defendant, Mary Sheedy, and so far as her guilt or innocence is concerned you must determine from the evidence outside and other than the statements or confessions alleged to have been made by the defendant, Monday McFarland."

He instructed the jury that it was with them to decide whether or not Monday's confessions had been obtained by threats or promises and consider or reject them accordingly.

There were twenty-seven instructions in all, covering twenty-four type written pages, which would fill some seven or eight columns of this paper, hence it would be simply impossible to give them at this time.

It is to be regretted, not perhaps that the closing arguments were so long as they were, but that they were so long that it was impossible for the stenographer to transcribe them. The time spent in the argument of that case was a full twenty-four hours. There were eight attorneys and they averaged three hours each. Mr.Lambertson spoke three hours and forty-five minutes.

At five minutes before 6'oclock Judge Field submitted the case to the jury. Baliff Taylor was sworn to take charge of them, keep them in a room, permit no communication and only speak to them himself to ask them if they had agreed upon a verdict.

They were then taken to the jury room, after which Judge Field complimented the public on its exemplary deportment during the long trial. He also commended the attorneys for their patience and courtesy. There had been some jars, it was true, as was usually the case in criminal cases, but the case had been hotly and ably contested and remarkably free from dissensions.

"Your honor," said Judge Lambertson, "I made a remark to Mr. Strode this morning in the heat of passion which I wish to withdraw, and hope he will do the same with what provoked it."

But he didn't, Mr. Strode simply replied:

"I freely forgive you, Mr. Lambertson, I did not take it seriously or get angry about it when you said it."

The crowd then dispersed to await the momentous outcome of that long and important trail, which has taxed the energies of all who have been connected with it in any capacity, as judge, attorney, juror, witness, court officer, reporter or spectator.

At a late hour last night it was announced that the jury would not be heard from until 9 a. m. to-day.