37

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?]