173

FRIDAY
______

The End Close at Hand.

When Judge Field's court resumed doling out justice in the Sheedy case this morning, no incidents of special interest transpired until ex-Sargeant W. W. Carder, of the old police force was placed upon the stand.

Mr. Carder had been ill for several days, and was not feeling in the best of humor: However,he manifested no irritability of temper during his direct examination by Counsel Strode for the defense, but balked at the first question put by Counsel Frank Hall and preemptorily refused to proceed unless Detective Malone and ex-Marshal Melick were removed from the room while his cross-examination was in progress.

Mr. Hall informed the witness that Malone and Melick were present upon permission of the court, and that he would have to proceed with his testimony. He still remained obdurate though appealed to by counsel for defense to answer. For three or four minutes Carder refused to open his lips, though twice warned by Judge Field to answer the questions asked. The situation became intensely interesting when Judge field, turning to the court reporter directed him to read the question, and at once cautioning Carder that unless he obeyed the court would apply a remedy to cure his obstinacy. Carder still remained recaicitrant, and everybody was expecting to hear an [?] court issued for his arrest for order [?] with a look of intense contempt, when, [?] this contempt, hatred and unuttered, directed at Malone and Melick, he pitched his voice in a minor key and answered. Carder had been summoned by defense to testify that the cane brought to the station the evening of the assault upon Sheedy had belonged to witness, who had, months before left it at the police station one night and lost it in some way.

His manner while upon the stand did not imply so much kindly regard for the defense as it did intense dislike of Malone and Melick, growing out of personal differences between them while all were members of the police force.

It suggested that he would rather see the prosecution fall in establishing a case against the defendants, not for any bias he entertained for them, as to humiliate his personal enemies by thwarting their efforts to secure a conviction and earning consequent applause as officers.

The evidence, including rebuttal by the state, will have been concluded this evening, or tomorrow morning, and final argument commenced by counsel not later than tomorrow afternoon. Prosecuting attorney Snell will open [?] prosecution, Mr. Hall will [?] the initial arguments of defense allow the Lambertson will offer the closing arguments for the state.

For the defense Mr. Stearns will open, to be followed by Col. Philpott, leaving Sheedy and M[?] in behalf of Mrs. Sheedy and McFarland. The case is one offering rare opportunities for logic, eloquence, wit and profound reasoning, and the arguments to be made by Messrs. Lambertson and Hall for the prosecution, and those of Col. Philpott and Strode for the defense are looked forward to with high expectation and pleasant anticipation by the throng that will fill every available part of the great court room on this momentous and historical occasion. The firey Philpott, with his ready wit and whithering sarcasm, has many admirers, whose expectations will not be disappointed.

Lambertson, with a vocabulary rich in resources, polished and ornate, supplemented with an imagination peopled with beautiful imagery, will make a powerful appeal to the inner sensibilities, while Frank Hall, quick at repartee, keen as a flashing scimetar and restlessly aggressive, will electrify the audience with impassioned appeals to the goddess of reason and justice. The intense earnestness of his manner--a gift of rare value in the forum--carries conviction with it, and his appeal to the jury cannot be other than a powerful one.

Mr. Strode will doubtless become excited, but that he is a ready and logical speaker, and an attorney of great erudition none will deny who have listened to him during the progress of the trial. With his associates he has made an able defense, and if successful no one will begrudge them the hard earned victory and the renown that will necessarily attach to the triumph.

The state, on the other hand has conducted a brilliant prosecution, has worked almost night and day, and is more than reasonably expectant of securing a conviction.

Yesterday Afternoon.

At Hosman followed his wife on the stand: He declared that he saw the man who fired fall down and roll over, and he could see that he was a white man, with a moustache and a beared about two or tree days old. The man were a faded brown overcoat.

Mrs. Maggie Hurts was called: She testified that she lived near the Sheedy residence; the lights were very bright on the night that Sheedy was assaulted.; she and her husband passed by; she saw Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy reading in the parlo' she saw them again in the same situation when she returned between 7 and 8 p. m., and a few minutes before the assault.

Mr. Hertz, the husband of the preceding witness, testified the same as his wife.

Mrs. White, who lives just east of the Sheedy residence, was put on the stand She testified that she had never seen any colored man hanging around the Sheedy residence.

Mrs. Davis, a milliner, swore that she had often seen Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy out walking and driving, and they appeared to enjoy each other's company.

At this juncture Hall asked:

"How often have you seen Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy laughing and talking while out driving?"

The witness replied:

"Only a few times"

Then Mr. Strode asked the witness if she hadn't often seen Mr. Hall, one of the counsel for the state, out walking and driving a number of times with his wife. The answer was in the affirmative. Then Mr. Strode asked:

"How often have you seen Mr. and Mrs. Hall laughing and talking while out driving?"

The witness answered:

"Not once."

A roar of laughter followed.

Miss Josie Dowden, sister of the preceding witness, corroborated in every way her sister's testimony.

Ex Marshal Melick was the next witness. He testified that he saw Mrs. Sheedy every day from the time of the assault to the time of her arrest on week afterwards, and she invariably evinced great grief whenever the death of Sheedy was referred to.

The trial ended for the day by the defense showing that the probate court had made an allowance for Mrs. Sheedy of $1,000, and that the heirs of John Sheedy had appealed the same and the appeal was now pending.

This Morning

L. C. Burr called and testified: I am a practicing attorney, and had a talk with Hyman Goldwater about the identification of the cane alleged to have been used in the assault upon Sheedy; Goldwater said Jim Malone had offered $500 to identify the cane; he afterward said the sum was $250; my recollection is that Goldwater first said Malone had offered $250; he also claimed that this sum was afterward raised to $300, and later at a conference between himself, Marshal Melick and Mayor Graham the offer had been raised to $500, which proposition he accepted, having, as he claimed, declined the $200 and $300 offers; Goldwater wanted to know if he could bring suit to recover the money and I told him he could; Goldwater did say they had agreed to pay the money to him, though he did say something about the bag.

Capt. Carder called: I have been on the police for twenty-three months. Was about police headquarters the night after the assault upon Sheedy and saw the cane claimed to have been used in striking him; the cane is all the right except that it looks as though the top had been changed since being first take to headquarters; recognized the cane as one that once belonged to me, but which I left at the station one night, I forgot the cane’and it was lost; got a better one and did not make much inquiry about it; It had been laying around headquarters from June until September, 1889, were other officers at the station who recognized it as my cane.

Carder having concluded his examination in chief, was turned over to counsel Frank Hall, for the prosecution. The earnest and energetic bearing of Mr. Hall suggested a grim determination to go thoroughly into details and to [?] witness’ evidence to the very dregs. This, associated with the near presence of Detective

[section folded and distorts lines. I can’t figure out which lines go together]

visibly annoyed Carder.He [?]ifted about [?]neasily in his chair, and gave premonition of the muttered protest that followed.

Turning to him Counsel Hall asked:

“Now, Mr. Carder, you say this cane—”

“I ain’t going to answer until Melick and Malone are removed from the room. I have not been present at the trial and they have, I have not been present at the trial and they have, I want a fair shake in this matter—”

“I’ll ask you the question again,” interrupted Mr. Hall, “and see whether or not you’ll answer.”

“Well, I’ll not.”

“I think you will,” retorted Hall, directing his attention to the court.

“Answer the question,” interposed Strode, “appealing to witness. “That’s my advice”

“I’ll not,” sullenly replied Carder.

“Yes you will,” responded the court, “or take the consequences.”

When the cane was first shown you at police headquarters, did this brass tack enable you to identify it?

The witness still persisted in refusing to answer, and the court warned him. that he would punish him severely unless he answered.

The question was again read and he answered:

“No, sir.”

“Did your cane have a brass tack?”

“Yes, I put one there myself.”

Where was the brass tack located?

“In the side of the cane. It has been changed since I last saw it.”

Will you swear, conceding this to be the same cane shown you at police headquarters, that it was the one you formerly owned.

“I think so.”

“Have you seen your cane since putting it away in police headquarters?”

“Yes; I think three or four times; can’t swear positively that it is the cane, but will say I never saw two canes resemble one another so much; the cane was made at the penitentiary.”

“The head was glued on when I first got it; knocked it off signaling on a telegraph pole for an officer at night.”

“Now, you say you thought this was your cane when it was first shown you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you not change your opinion later?”

“No, sir.”

“Did you not tell Henry Hoagland at the Capital hotel that you did not believe it was your cane?”

Witness vainly tried to evade a direct answer to the question, but finally with great reluctance, answered that he did not.

“I may have told Mr. Hoagland that it was a bare possibility that the cane was not mine; also told you (Counsel Hall) that I would not positively swear to the cane.”

“Did you not, in police headquarters, in the presence of Mr. Hogan and another man from the penitentiary, say that the cane was not yours?”

“I may have said something of that kind; when I last saw my cane it was straight and not bent al all.” Excused.

Wm. Barnes, called: I was jailor at police headquarters; knew Carder; he was captain and later sergeant; I remember when Sheedy was assaulted; I recall when McFarland was arrested; I was at the jail when the cane said to have been picked up at the Sheedy residence; it was brough there that night, but I did not see it until the next day. I recognized it as the one belonging to Captain Carder; I never saw but once the cane while Carder owned it; this was in 1889.

Cross-examination—Had seen it only once before it was brought into the station the night after the assault upon Sheedy; there were two scollops on Carder’s cane; I can’t tell how I came to take notice of the scollops; don’t recollect whether there were any tacks in the cane or not; can’t tell if the head was glued on or tacked on.

Witness was shown the cane and instead of finding only two scollops he swore to on the cane he found a half doezen or more; he could not assign any specific reason for recognizing the cane; he had not noticed any brass tacks when brought to the station that night; the cane was shown the jury and a dozen scollops or indentations were found.

Philpott humorously charged that counsel for the state had “cut scollops” with the cane.

“No,” replied Hall, “it was Monday McFarland who cut scollops with it.”

Philpott excitedly—“Put that in the record. Put it in that Hall charges this to Monday McFarland.”

Carder recalled:

“Do you know Mr. Alexander, a reporter for the Journal,” asked Counsel Hall.

“Yes.”

“Did you not tell Mr. Alexander that the Journal was mistaken about having published the statement that the cane was yours?”

“I never had any conversation with Alexander about that cane, though I may have talked to him in a general way about it.” Excused.

Miss Frannie Warner called: Am acquainted with Mrs. Sheedy; knew Sheedy and frequently visited their house; saw Mrs. Sheedy after her return from Buffalo; they seemed very attentive to one another. There was no difference in their behavior toward each other after her return from Buffalo;visited the house after Sheedy was hurt.

Witness portrayed a scene of sorrow and pathos that would have brought tears to the calloused optics of a wooden Indian. She said the grief of Mrs. Sheedy was so violent that her sobs shook the bed and presumably rattled the china in the remote closet.

Mrs. S. M. Melick called: I was at Sheedy’s residence after the assault; it was on Wednesday evening; observed Mrs. Sheedy deportment; part of the time she was crying; the mention of her husband’s name appeared to make her weep, but would regain her composure and become calm.

As Mrs. Melick passed from the stand to the seat reserved for her in the rear of where Mrs. Sheedy sat, the [?] prisoner smiled one of her most captivating smiles and gently nodded her thanks.

The supply of witness present for the defense having become exhausted, Judge Strode, at the request of Colonel Strode and Philpott, adjourned court until 3 o’clock in order that they might occupy the interim in rounding up another batch.

This Afternoon.

E. H. Andrus; called: Live in Lincoln and own Cushman Park; was acquainted with John Sheedy and wife; saw them at the park several times; their deportment was very kind to each other.

W. W. Carder, recalled.

Question by Hall.

“Do you remember saying to F. A. Miller and George F. Sipe at police headquarters when the cane was there for identification that you at first recognized the cane as yours, but afterward became satisfied that it was not?”

“Don’t remember saying that.” Excused.

F. B. Baker called: Am a farmer; my wife is a sister of Mrs. Sheedy; was at Sheedy’s the day after the funeral; recollect about a young man coming there with a power of attorney; there were a number of others there; recall Dr. Hook being called that morning to see Mrs. Sheedy; she was ill that day; the two Sheedy brothers and Mr. Oppenheimer had just sat down to the table and Walstrom was not there that forenoon; had never seen Walstrom until afterward.

Cross examination.—Left the house at 11:57; train left at 12:03; Walstrom was a small man; can’t tell the color of his hair and eyes; would say he was about 25 years of age; saw Mr. Oppenheimer when he came to the house; I was in the parlor and Mrs. Sheedy was in the sitting room lying on the sofa; I went out to order a hack and was not gone from the house more than fifteen minutes during the entire morning. I think the piano was closed. Excused.

Mrs. Dean, sister of Mrs. Sheedy, called.

This lady corroborated the testimony of Mr. Baker with reference to the call of Oppenheimer.

Counsel Frank Hall assumed a most solemn and earnest mein, and slowly questioned Mrs. Dean upon every detail of the visit of Walstrom to the house.

Her answers were framed cautiously, as though deeply conscious of treading upon dangerous ground. However, she maintained a constrained composure, and by effort held up during the trying ordeal to which she was subjected. Mr. Hall had carefully posted himself upon the details of that momentous meeting of Sneedy and Walstrom, and frequently refreshed her memory relative to occurences which transpired at that meeting. She denied that Mr. Sheedy sent for Walstrom and also denied that Sheedy told Walstrom he (Sheedy) did not want to see him.

----------------------
SATURDAY
-----------
The preliminary examination of E. W. Hutchinson chared with murder, was continued until Friday morning.
----------------------
District Court [Cullings?].

In thh case of Mary A. Mathews vs. Edward Mathews, the latter filed his answer today. He relates a sad story of deception. He says that along about December 1, 1888, he first became acquainted with plaintiff, who was living at 2801 N street. She had two children by her first husband Miller, and he had two bp his wife from whom he was living apart, and fro whom he secured a divorce soon afterwards. He boarded with Mrs. Miller until January 15, 1889, when he left the city. Nevertheless they were in continual correspondence, and by means of which they became engaged. He says plaintiff represented herself as being a virtuous and chaste woman, which wasn’t true, and if he had known it he wouldn’t have married her on September 2, 1889. He also believes and states that she did this to mislead him and induce him to marry her. He also says she hit him with a billet of wood, displayed a vicious temper and used very sulphurous and indecent language. Furthermore that during their wedded life until she deserted him March 18, 1891, she treated him coldly, and refused to allow him to love her. Therefore he asks for the divorce.

Wm. Barr asks the court to dismiss the action for $10,000 for seduction by Hattie Nims, on the ground that she has not obeyed the order of the court to submit to an examination.

In the case of McConnell vs. Meyer, which has occupied the greater part of the week in Judge Hall’s court, the judge this morning handed down his decree finding that there was no equity in plaintiff’s petition, and making the specific finding that when Meyer purchased the stock at sheriff’s sale he did so without any agreement to hold the same for the interest or use of McConnell.

When the divorce case of Ella J. Oatley vs. Simeon E. Oatley was called in Judge Tibbett’s court this morning, Simeon was legally in default, but he was there in person. He asked for time to get a lawyer, but they were evidently scarce, as after a five minute search he reported no success. He asked to appear in his own behalf, and at the first question leveled at his wife he shouted “I object.” He was quieted down, and the trial proceeded. Mrs. Oatley works for Mrs. L[?]n. Holmes, and the testimony, which included Judge Field’s, showed that she was a hard-working woman, and Oatley had failed to support, being drunk the greater part of the time. In his own behalf Oatley denied drinking, although he was pretty well loaded at the time, but said he was sick two thirds of the time. The woman was given a divorce and custody of children.
----------------------
Arguments to Begin Monday.

When the long hands on the dial face of the clock in Judge Field’s court room centered across the figures XII in a neck and neck race, at noon today, the official announcement was made from the bench that so far as the hearing of evidence is concerned, the trial of Mary Sheedy and, Monday McFarland for the killing of John Sheedy on the evening of January 11 last, was closed and all admissible testimony in. It only remains now for the court to give its instructions and attorneys to complete their arguments, when the final arbiters, the jurors, will retire to sift the evidence and wrestle for a verdict. Just what their findings, relative to Mrs. Sheedy, will be, admits of a wide range of speculation, which it is idle and useless to attempt to solve. The fact that she is a woman in distress may appeal powerfully to the jury, as it would to any American imbued within Americans sense of sympathy when a penalty so severe attaches to guilt. Time will disclose that which now lies concealed beyond human scruting in the womb of the future.

The defense has been ably conducted and based upon its ability to prove that two white men, instead of a single colored man were concerned in the fatal assault upon John Sheedy, and that Mrs. Sheedy was in no manner connected with the, crime. The defense introduced a number of witnesses to prove that two men were seen running south on O street immediately after the shots were fired by Sheedy, but though an incident of this character occurring at such time would be pregnant with significance, and challenge the close attention of the least observing, it is noticeable that none of these witnesses were enabled to give any plausible description of the alleged fleeing man. Unfortunately for this theory so vital to the defense, these men, in leaving the Sheedy premises and running up O street at the time, would have claimed the attention of three police officers, two of whom were on the corner of O and Twelfth when the shots were first heard, and who ran down Twelfth to the alley, and thence down the alley, and a moment later to the Sheedy residence. The blacksmith who was standing on the opera house corner waiting for a car, and who followed the officers and remained near the alley for ten minutes afterward would have seen these men, but he did not.

The prosecution pretty effectually exploded this hypothesis of the defense, not alone by submitting negative testimony from disinterested witnesses, but by showing where Williams and Gleason, who is was intimated were the two men, were at the time of the assault upon Sheedy. The testimony brought out in rebuttal of the evidence of Hitchcock and Curry that they saw two men running away from the alley, leaves but little doubt that the alleged men were creations of the imagination and had no existence in fact. Further, the statement of the two boys that that the patrol wagon was at Sheedy’s that night is disproved by the evidence of the driver of the wagon and the police records as kept by Capt. Carder, whose entry upon the book that night proves the patrol wagon was not taken out.

The prosecution appears to have completely fortified itself upon this point, evidence it looks as though the proposition of the defense had been completely annihilated.

The court room was crowded this morning with a mixed audience of men and women, who had gathered in the hope of seeing or hearing some hoped for denouement in the closing hours of the great trial. In this they were doomed to disappointment, as nothing of an unusual character transpired.

Mrs. Sheedy and her relatives, flanked by a number of lady friends, occupied the chairs reserved for them in front of the bar. Several times Mrs. Morgan lapsed into tears and silently wept behind the folds of her delicate lace handkerchief, but as for Mrs. Sheedy she maintained an attitude of stolid composure and an expression of contemptuous indifference or dreamy contemplation. With eyes sometimes closed as though in repose and at others half shut she gazed languidly at the floor suggesting that her mind was far removed from the surrounding drama in which she was the centre figure.

Her bearing betrayed neither fear of impending peril nor half conscious hope of ultimate acquittal, but rather that of dreamy unconcern. She possesses either an iron nerve or is calloused beyond the bounds of human credulity.

The anxiety in her behalf, manifested by her sisters on several occasions, apparently does not harass her mind and seems to find no place in her thoughts which appear to wander in silent contemplation on the remote frontiers of other climes.

Monday McFarland, her alleged accomplice, for the first time, evidenced emotion this morning as he sat in his accustomed place holding a bright looking child in his arms. The eyes of the little chick roamed over the room in childish inquiry and wonder in a vain endeavor to solve the meaning of the impressive scenes around it. Noticing this, the dusky father, touched by the pathos of the situation, bowed his head and wept. His wife, a quite refined appearing woman with an attractive, intelligent face, and quite modestly, but tastily attired, occupied a seat to his left, but considerably in the rear. The emotion of McFarland escaped her attention, which was attracted in another direction at the time. This was her first visit to the court house since the trial began, being compelled, owing to the loss of her husband’s services, to maintain herself and child by hard work as a servant.

The defense confined itself this morning to submitting evidence calculated to discredit suspicion that Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy lived together in any other than the most affectionate mutual harmony, and the create the impression that Sheedy was murdered by two gamblers and not by Monday McFarland.

Yesterday Afternoon.

Hayman Goldwater and L. C. Burr were called yesterday afternoon to discredit the assertions of each other, and both succeeded. Goldwater denied telling Burr that he had fixed the head of the cane and impliedly stating that he did not have the cane in the store. Burr emphatically swore he did say so.

P. J. Stepney, a cousin of McFarland, was put on the stand to identify a cane mutilated so as to appear like the one used, and he prompted identified it. Attorneys Philpott and Strode also took the stand to contradict Detective Malone’s denial of having had certain conversations with the attorneys while prowling round the jail waiting for a chance to see Monday.

Marshal Melick was put on the stand and asked what reward was offered for the arrest and conviction of the murderers. Witness testified that a reward of $1000 had been offered by Dennis Sheedy and Mrs. Sheedy for the arrest of the murderers. Later Mrs. Sheedy withdrew her offer. Witness continued: “Mr. Dennis Sheedy then offered $1000 reward; I told Jim Malone of this; this reward was offered to me privately; I offered James Malone one-half of this in case of conviction; the second offer of reward was made after Mrs. Sheedy’s arrest.”

Coroner Holyoke was put on the witness stand and produced the cheek bone of John Sheedy. He testified that at the time of the autopsy the cheek bone was broken only at its point of articulation with the forehead; the bone had to be pried out. He testified further that he took charge of the stomach and later sent it to Prof. Vaugh of Ann Arbbor; Dennis Sheedy offered $200 to pay toward the expense of the analysis of the stomach; Dennis Sheedy said that the county offered only $30; the stomach was put in a sealed jar in the back part of Brown’s drug store; almost anybody could have gotten at the jar.

The defense rested, and the state called Geo. Bradeen and Anson Fullington to prove that Gleason and Williams, had been in the gambling rooms above the Ivy Leaf saloon from 7 until 8:30 p. m. the night of the assault and the first intimation had of the assault on Sheedy was when Ab. Carder came up and announced it. Gleason and Williams are the men whom an endeavor was made to implicate.

Charles D. Alexander, police reporter on the Journal, testified that Captain Carder stated to him that he was unable to identify the cane.

Strode then asked: “Haven’t you taken a deep interest in this trial.”

“I have taken a deep interest in this case only as a newspaper reporter,” was Alexander’s reply.

In reply to another question Alexander testified:

“Carder asked me not to say anything in the paper about his not being able to identify the cane.”

Deputy Sheriff Hoagland was recalled, and testified positively that Captain Carder tld him at the Capital hotel in the presence of John B. Wright that he was not sure that the cane was his.

Sergeant Fred Miller testified that on the day following the time that the cane was found on the porch of the Sheedy residence, Captain Carder informed witness that he couldn’t identify the cane as his own.

Mr. Lambertson, attorney for the state, then offered an almanac in evidence to show that there was no moon on the night that McFarland shot at John Sheedy, but in the face of which Mr. and Mrs. Hosman, who were thirty-five feet away, claimed that it was a white man who did the shooting.

Strode objected because there was no evidence to show it was a scientific work, but it went it, and the court adjourned.

This Morning.

D. G. Courtnay recalled—John Sheedy was in my office two or three days before his death. He gave me a letter to read.

“You may state if that letter did not contain a threat that he was assaulted”.

Ruled out.

I gave the letter back to Sheedy and have never seen it since; I have been through his papers, and looked especially for that letter, but could not find it; also looked through his safe, room and bureau, but it could not be found. He called to converse about the letter and I read it. The writing was disguised and there was no signature. Sheedy told me that he had shown it to his wife. The letter was to the effect that unless he let up and ceased trying to run the town in his own interest and to the detriment of the other gamblers it would be only a question of time before he was killed. This letter was shown me after Sheedy had been shot at; I told Col. Biggerstaff and Counsel Strode about this matter several days ago.

Cross-examined—The letter was written in a man’s hand and disguised; I do not think it was signed at all, and am certain it was not signed by “A Friend to Your Wife.” I only surmised the writing was disguised, as it looked strained and not natural; I think Malone and Carder know about that letter, as they were in the confidence of Sheedy.

Re-direct—The letters written by Mrs. Sheedy to her husband from Buffalo were burned by Mrs. Sheedy. Sheedy read these letters at my house and cried like a child.

Officer Kinney called in rebuttal: I was on corner of Twelfth and O at the time Sheedy was assaulted; Officer Otto was with me; I did not see anybody running south on Twelfth street after the shooting; I was in a position where I could have seen them had they been running down the street; I ran north on Twelfth, going possibly a few feet beyond the alley; we met Henry Krouse running toward us; he turned and ran down the alley; if we had seen any men running we would have been pretty apt to have stopped them; I don’t think we all went clear through the alley; I did, but don’t think Otto and Adams did.

The defense tried hard to get the court clear.

D. C. Tapping called: Blacksmith by trade; on the night John Sheedy was assaulted I was on the corner of Twelfth and O waiting for a car; when I heard the shot fired I walked diagonally across the street and went to the curbing opposite the Sheedy residence; did not see two men running up Twelfth street, one thing certain, there could not have been or I would certainly have seen them; saw two policemen run toward the house and afterwards go into the alley. The reason I spoke about my having been in the vicinity on the evening of the assault, was because I had been told yesterday that two boys had claimed to have been there and saw two men running away from the Sheedy residence: don’t think this was true and I told my story, and was called as a witness.

Officer Otto: Was on corner of Twelfth and O when the shots were fired; Officer Kinney was with me; we ran just past the saloon on the corner of the alley when we met Special Officer Krouse; we turned and started down the alley; I did not go more than ten feet into the alley and stayed there until Kinney and Adams, the latter of whom had joined us, returned to Twelfth street; did not see any men run, out of the alley or climb over the back fence.

Mrs. Margaret Skinner called: Live on P and O street; my rooms are located in rear of the block. Have lived there since last August; I was in my rooms the evening of the assault upon Mr. Sheedy; when I heard the shots fired that evening I ran out into the hall, raised the window and looked out.

Strode and Stearns violently opposed the admission of Mrs. Skinner, because it was alleged by counsel for state that she would testify that instead of seeing two men running up Twelfth street she saw a negro fleeing through the alley, followed at some distance by two officers.

This set Strode, Stearns and Woodward wild, and they were all on their feet at once howling for the court to come to the rescue and help them let loose of the bear. The court kindly did so, and the testimony of Mrs. Skinner was excluded because her name had not been endorsed on the back of the information at the proper time.

Ex-Mayor Graham called: There was no arrangements ever made between Hyman Goldwater, Mr. Malone, Mr. Melick and myself that the former was to receive any consideration for identifying the cane said to have been used in the assault upon Sheedy. There never was any such conference nor was any reward offered to any one to identify the cane. This testimony was corroborated by Marshal Melick, who denied any knowledge of offering a reward for the identification of the cane.

Bob Malone called: Was patrol drive in January last; the patrol wagon was not at Sheedy’s residence that night; if the wagon had been taken out I would have known it.

W. W. Carder called: If the patrol wagon was out the record will show it.

Counsel Hall handing record to witness:

“Look at this record and see if iit shows the patrol wagon was the Sheedy residence that night.”

“The patrol wagon did not go to Sheedy’s that night.”

Mr. Hall then announced that the state rested.

The court then stated that case was to be regarded as definitely closed so far as the taking of evidence was concerned, and announced that he would probably be ready to give instructions to the jury Monday, though this would not be done unless counsel insisted.

It was then agreed to postpone argument until Monday, when Mr. Snell will open for the prosecution.
----------------------
Why will you cough when Shiloh’s Cure will give immediate relief. Price 10c., 50c. and $1. Solf by Henry H. Barth, 929 O street.

----------------------

C. W. Kaley, Auctioneer, 1524 O St.
----------------------

Shiloh’s Catarrh Remedy—a positive cure for catarrh, diptheria and cankermouth. Sold by Henry H, Barth, 929 O street.

----------------------

ATTENTION

EVERYBODY.

The Enterprise Commission company 1308 O street, will sell at public auction each and every evening hereafter, until further notice.

We will sell to the highest and best bidder, solid gold, filled cases and silver watches, furniture, crockery, lace curtains, and in fact EVERYTHING.

These are consigned goods and must be sold or returned within the next ten days.

Call and examine these goods, as we have the best makes, and direct from the factories.

We will sell Rogers Bros. silverware, Elgin and Waltham watches, and [abon?] 100 clocks that will be sold regardless of cost to manufacture.

Goods fresh from the factories constantly arriving.

THE ENTERPRISE

COMMISSION CO.

----------------------

Notice Probate of Will,

In county court, Lancaster county, Nebraska, notice probate of will of George Lohstroh, deceased.

The State of Nebraska to the heirs and next of kind of the said George Lostroh deceased:

Take notice that upon filing of a written instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of George Lohstroh for probate and allowance, it is ordered that said matter be set for hearing the 19th day of June, A. D., 1891, before said county court,at the county court room in the court house in Lincoln, Lancaster county, Nebraska, at the hour of 1 o’clock p. m., at which time any person interested may appear and contest the same; and notice of this proceeding is ordered ;published three weeks successively in the LINCOLN WEEKLY NEWS, a weekly newspaper; published in this state.

In testimony where of, I have hereunto set my hand the seal of the county court at Lincoln, Nebraska, this 18th day of May, A. D., 1891. W. H. STEWART,

County Judge.

SEAL.