50

JUROR NOTION NOT GUILTY

OF PERJURY IN THE GREATEST SHEEDY CASE

The Witnesses Who Made Those Famous Affidavits Afflicted Wtih Poor Memories.

None of Them Could Swear That Norton Had Ever Expressed as Opinion as to the Guilt or Innocense of Monday McFarland or Mary Sheedy

The Last Act is the Great Farce.

The last thunders in the great Sheedy murder case reverberated in Justice Cochran's court yesterday afternoon for a time and then finally died away forever. It was the occasion of the preliminary examination of Albert B. Norton, the juror who was so summarily fired from the jury box when it developed that he had at divers times expressed an opinion in relation to the guilt and innocence of Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy. It will be remembered that County Attorney Snell, acting in accordance with Judge Field's instructions, immediately filed an information in Justice Cochran's court, charging Norton with perjury. Norton furnished bail for his appearance and retained R. J. Greene to defend. When the case came up for hearing yesterday afternoon the court room was crowded with spectators whose interest in anything pertaining to the Sheedy case was still as intense as ever.

The first witness called was O. A. Mullen, court reporter for Judge Field, who read his report of Norton's voice dire examination. Following is the substance of examination:

"Have you formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants charged with the murder of John Sheedy?"

"I have not."

"Have you any conscientious scruples about returning a verdict of guilty where the death penalty attaches?"

"No sir, I have not."

"Would you refuse to return a verdict of guilty on purely circumstantial evidence, where such evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendants?"

"It would depend a good deal whether the evidence was strong enough. If it was strong enough to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. I would be bound to give the person the benefit of the doubt anyway."

"You would give him that anyway?"

"Yes, sir."

"If the evidence was sufficient to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt, if it was purely circumstantial, would you return a verdict of guilty?"

"I think I would."

"Would circumstantial evidence convince you?"

"Yes sir, I think it would to a certain extent."

"Heave you, or not, any conscientious scrupies against returning a verdict of guilty where the death penalty attaches on purely circumstantial evidence which excludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the defendants."

"No sir, I have not."

Cross-examined by Mr. Stearns:

"I believe you said you had not any opinion touching the guilt or innocence of the defendants?"

"No, I have no."

"Did you talk to anyone who pretended to know the facts?"

"No, I heard it talked as a matter of conversation."

"You never formed any opinion at all touching the guilt or innocence of the defendants?"

"No."

"Do you know any reason why you could not now render a fair and impartial verdict under the law and evidence?"

"I don't."

"Have you any bias or prejudice for or against these defendants or either of them?"

"Not the least."

"Could you presume them innocent until proven guilty?"

"I should, certainly."

"Does the fact that an information has been tied changing them with the crime of murder make any impression, or influence or bias your mind one way or the other, so as to prevent you giving them a fair trial."

"It does not."

"Have you read what purported to be the testimony in the case?"

"I didn't read much of it. I was away from home to work when it happened. I used to get little sketches, coming home on Saturday."

"Was that newspaper statements or evidence at the preliminary trial?"

"Newspaper reports."

"Not any evidence?"

"No."

"You didn't hear or read any of the evidence given relating to this case?"

"No."

"Where was you; away from home?"

"Five miles north and west of where I lived. I was building a house at that time."

"Did they take any paper there?"

"Yes, I believe they took the Farmers' Almanac, a weekly one."

"You didn't see what purported to be evidence?"

"No, they didn't get them. They generally came to the post-office on Saturday, the same day I came home."

"State whether you have read anything about the alleged confession of one of these defendants."

"No, never saw it to my knowledge."

W. A. Tarbell, a grain merchant of Davey was sworn and testified that shortly after the publication of McFarland's confession, Norton came into his office and read an account of the case in the Omaha [Ber?]. After reading a short time Norton exclaimed: "Mrs. Sheedy will be cleared and the hanged."

Philip Opp, a hardware merchant, was called and testified that he had heard Norton say while at Harkson's store that the d--d ought to be hanged," and that "Mrs. Sheedy is guilty, too."

E. R. Sizer, clerk of the district court, was called and testified that Norton was summoned, sworn and examined as a juror in the cause of the State of Nebraska against Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy.

A. Harkson, postmaster at Davey, testified that Norton came into his store one morning after the Sheedy murder and made the remark that "Mrs. Sheedy will be cleared but the would be hanged."

C. W. Corry, school teacher at Davey, was sworn and testified that he had heard Norton declare that he believed the would be hanged, and also that the story about McFarland having criminal relations with Mrs. Sheedy was untrue.

G. A. Sawyer was the next witness called. He swore that on May 1 he and Norton had drove from Davey to Lincoln together and had engaged in a conversation about the Sheedy case; that Norton said he had been subpoenaed as a juror in the case and was going to get on the jury as there "was $500 in it;" that Norton rode back to Davey with witness and that on the way had stated that a certain man told him there was $500 in the Sheedy case and by G--d he was going to have it; that witness had further said that the Sheedy's were going to "convict that woman and get the Sheedy estate."

The state closed and Norton was called to the stand to testify on his own behalf.

He sympathetically denied having ever formed or expressed an opinion touching the guilt or innocence of Mrs. Sheedy or Monday McFarland. He admitted having read some accounts of the case, but denied having either read any of the testimony adduced at the preliminary examination or Monday's confession. He had told Sawyer he was going to serve on the jury us there was $2 a day in it, but never said he was going to have $500 out of the case. He had said that some of lawyers were going to have $500 out of the case. He had said that some of the lawyers were going to make $500 out of the case and had remarked to Sawyer that he wished he could make $500.

At the conclusion of Norton's testimony Attorney Green filed a motion to dismiss the case, in support of which he had advanced the following propositions:

In opening his argument Greene said he did not behave that any court or any spectator who listened to the testimony in this case could not help but be driven to the irresistible conclusion that there had been no offense shown or pretended to be shown by the prosecution. He contended that the information was incomplete, preposterous and silly; that no court would sustain a conviction upon such an information. That the words upon which perjury was predicated were not alleged to be either true or false; that the complaint failed utterly to allege that the perjury was in a matter material to the issue. That the evidence was utterly insufficient. That no witness had testified that Norton had expressed an opinion to him. That the worst that could be said against the defendant was that he was intelligent enough to read the newspapers and honest enough to not deny it, even when charged with perjury under the oath of the county attorney. Greene concluded by declaring that it is a well established proposition of law that the testimony of the defendant in perjury cases cannot be overcome by the testimony of any single witness, but that more than the testimony of one witness is necessary to constitute a preponderance of the testimony.

County Attorney Snell evidently realized that his case was rather weak and accordingly only spoke about five minutes, drawing principally upon the fact that Judge Field had instructed him to file the information against NOrton.

In announcing his decision Judge Cochran declared that the evidence introduced by the state was weak and introduced by the state was weak and insufficient and that no jury would ever convict Norton on it. He did not, therefore, feel it his duty to bind the defendant over and put the county to a large expense for nothing, and consequently, he would discharge Norton.

GRANT GETS JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT.

What it Costs the City to Grade in Front of a Man's Property.

Mrs. Josephine Steven's Damage Suit Against the Lincoln Street Railway Company Tried to a Jury in District Court

Grant Gets a Judgment

After a trial lasting through the greater part of two days that case of Patrick J. Grant against the city for damages to his property on Ninth and M streets, came to a close at noon yesterday, when the jury brought in a verdict for plaintiff for $500.

Suit for Personal Damages

The case of Mrs. Josephine Stevens against the Lincoln Street Railway company for $5,000 personal damages was begun before Judge Tibbets yesterday. Mrs. Stevens claims that something over a year ago she alighted from a street car awhile it was in motion and received personal injuries equivalent to the above sum. She claims that the car jerked suddenly and threw her down, while the company claims that she got off while the car was in motion. Mr. Burr appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Deweese for the defendence.

Equity Doeker.

The following cases were disposed of yesterday by Judge Chapman:

Mutual Benefit the Insurance Company vs. T. E. Miller et al. court finds due planting $1,186.97, which is first lien on the northeast quarter of section 11-10-12; also finds due the First National bank $2,282,90, which is a second lien on the northeast quarter of section 11-10-12; the northeast quarter of section 26-12-6, and a second lien of the southeast quarter of section 22-19-08; that the Security Investment company holds a first lien on the latter quarter, which it does not week to foreclose in this action; decree of foreclosure and sale ordered.

John Fitzgerald for himself and all other stockholders of the Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Company vs. The Fitzgerald & Mallor Construction Company and the Missouri Pacific Railway Company; set for trial June.

A. H. Weit & Co. vs. W. B. Barnes and Thomas L. McNeil; court finds due plaintiff on account for lumber and material $318.40, and that he is entitled to a lien upon lot 24of block 26 in the first addition to West Lincoln; decree of foreclosure and order of sale.

Capital City Planting Mills vs. Abbie P. Tiffany et. al.; court finds due plaintiff $148.99; decree of foreclosure and order of sale of lots 3 and 4 in block 7, East Lincoln.

Badger Lumber [?] vs. Joseph H. Turner et. al.: court finds due plaintiff $508.80; also finds due George $66.58, M. L. Trester $24,64 and R. S. Young $25.23; decree of foreclosure and order of sale.

Clark & Leonard investment company vs. Sara A. Batta et. al.; court finds due plaintiff $781.52 to Charles Hammond $8,202.70; also finds that the mortgage of the Clark & Leonard investment company for $6,500 is a first lien and that of Hammond second; decree of foreclosure and order of sale.

Motion Docket

The following entries were made yesterday on the motion docket:

State of Nebraska vs. Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy; motion for order allowing attorney a fees to L. W. Billingsley as one of the attorneys defending Monday McFarland.

John Smith vs. J. H. Foxworthy; motion to confirm sale of real estate.

George E. Badow vs. Charles H. Johnson et al; motion to make G. W. Buster party defendant.

D. L. Brace vs. H. W. Pynchon; motions in two cases to confirm sales, order deeds, to D. L. Brace and put him in possession.

Isaiah Hlae vs. Samuel McClay, administrator of the estate of H. C. Malone, deceased; death of plaintiff suggested and motion to revive judgment in the name of Sarah M. Hale, administratri x of the estate of Isaiah Hale.

Lay Calf.

The calf of the [?] docket for to-day is as follows:

Peer vs. Leavitt.

Spellman vs. Lincoln Rapid Transit Company.

Lew is vs. German Fire Insurance Company.

Mohr vs. Bauer et al.

Kennard vs. Fitzgerald.

Heiskell vs. Brace.

Cahn vs. C., B., [?]

Fitzgerald vs. Baydwin.

Fitzgerald vs. Meyers.

Moore vs. Ferguson.

JUROR NOTION NOT GUILTY

OF PERJURY IN THE GREATEST SHEEDY CASE

The Witnesses Who Made Those Famous Affidavits Afflicted Wtih Poor Memories.

None of Them Could Swear That Norton Had Ever Expressed as Opinion as to the Guilt or Innocense of Monday McFarland or Mary Sheedy

The Last Act is the Great Farce.

The last thunders in the great Sheedy murder case reverberated in Justice Cochran's court yesterday afternoon for a time and then finally died away forever. It was the occasion of the preliminary examination of Albert B. Norton, the juror who was so summarily fired from the jury box when it developed that he had at divers times expressed an opinion in relation to the guilt and innocence of Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy. It will be remembered that County Attorney Snell, acting in accordance with Judge Field's instructions, immediately filed an information in Justice Cochran's court, charging Norton with perjury. Norton furnished bail for his appearance and retained R. J. Greene to defend. When the case came up for hearing yesterday afternoon the court room was crowded with spectators whose interest in anything pertaining to the Sheedy case was still as intense as ever.

The first witness called was O. A. Mullen, court reporter for Judge Field, who read his report of Norton's voice dire examination. Following is the substance of examination:

"Have you formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants charged with the murder of John Sheedy?"

"I have not."

"Have you any conscientious scruples about returning a verdict of guilty where the death penalty attaches?"

"No sir, I have not."

"Would you refuse to return a verdict of guilty on purely circumstantial evidence, where such evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendants?"

"It would depend a good deal whether the evidence was strong enough. If it was strong enough to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. I would be bound to give the person the benefit of the doubt anyway."

"You would give him that anyway?"

"Yes, sir."

"If the evidence was sufficient to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt, if it was purely circumstantial, would you return a verdict of guilty?"

"I think I would."

"Would circumstantial evidence convince you?"

"Yes sir, I think it would to a certain extent."

"Heave you, or not, any conscientious scrupies against returning a verdict of guilty where the death penalty attaches on purely circumstantial evidence which excludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the defendants."

"No sir, I have not."

Cross-examined by Mr. Stearns:

"I believe you said you had not any opinion touching the guilt or innocence of the defendants?"

"No, I have no."

"Did you talk to anyone who pretended to know the facts?"

"No, I heard it talked as a matter of conversation."

"You never formed any opinion at all touching the guilt or innocence of the defendants?"

"No."

"Do you know any reason why you could not now render a fair and impartial verdict under the law and evidence?"

"I don't."

"Have you any bias or prejudice for or against these defendants or either of them?"

"Not the least."

"Could you presume them innocent until proven guilty?"

"I should, certainly."

"Does the fact that an information has been tied changing them with the crime of murder make any impression, or influence or bias your mind one way or the other, so as to prevent you giving them a fair trial."

"It does not."

"Have you read what purported to be the testimony in the case?"

"I didn't read much of it. I was away from home to work when it happened. I used to get little sketches, coming home on Saturday."

"Was that newspaper statements or evidence at the preliminary trial?"

"Newspaper reports."

"Not any evidence?"

"No."

"You didn't hear or read any of the evidence given relating to this case?"

"No."

"Where was you; away from home?"

"Five miles north and west of where I lived. I was building a house at that time."

"Did they take any paper there?"

"Yes, I believe they took the Farmers' Almanac, a weekly one."

"You didn't see what purported to be evidence?"

"No, they didn't get them. They generally came to the post-office on Saturday, the same day I came home."

"State whether you have read anything about the alleged confession of one of these defendants."

"No, never saw it to my knowledge."

W. A. Tarbell, a grain merchant of Davey was sworn and testified that shortly after the publication of McFarland's confession, Norton came into his office and read an account of the case in the Omaha [Ber?]. After reading a short time Norton exclaimed: "Mrs. Sheedy will be cleared and the hanged."

Philip Opp, a hardware merchant, was called and testified that he had heard Norton say while at Harkson's store that the d--d ought to be hanged," and that "Mrs. Sheedy is guilty, too."

E. R. Sizer, clerk of the district court, was called and testified that Norton was summoned, sworn and examined as a juror in the cause of the State of Nebraska against Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy.

A. Harkson, postmaster at Davey, testified that Norton came into his store one morning after the Sheedy murder and made the remark that "Mrs. Sheedy will be cleared but the would be hanged."

C. W. Corry, school teacher at Davey, was sworn and testified that he had heard Norton declare that he believed the would be hanged, and also that the story about McFarland having criminal relations with Mrs. Sheedy was untrue.

G. A. Sawyer was the next witness called. He swore that on May 1 he and Norton had drove from Davey to Lincoln together and had engaged in a conversation about the Sheedy case; that Norton said he had been subpoenaed as a juror in the case and was going to get on the jury as there "was $500 in it;" that Norton rode back to Davey with witness and that on the way had stated that a certain man told him there was $500 in the Sheedy case and by G--d he was going to have it; that witness had further said that the Sheedy's were going to "convict that woman and get the Sheedy estate."

The state closed and Norton was called to the stand to testify on his own behalf.

He sympathetically denied having ever formed or expressed an opinion touching the guilt or innocence of Mrs. Sheedy or Monday McFarland. He admitted having read some accounts of the case, but denied having either read any of the testimony adduced at the preliminary examination or Monday's confession. He had told Sawyer he was going to serve on the jury us there was $2 a day in it, but never said he was going to have $500 out of the case. He had said that some of lawyers were going to have $500 out of the case. He had said that some of the lawyers were going to make $500 out of the case and had remarked to Sawyer that he wished he could make $500.

At the conclusion of Norton's testimony Attorney Green filed a motion to dismiss the case, in support of which he had advanced the following propositions:

In opening his argument Greene said he did not behave that any court or any spectator who listened to the testimony in this case could not help but be driven to the irresistible conclusion that there had been no offense shown or pretended to be shown by the prosecution. He contended that the information was incomplete, preposterous and silly; that no court would sustain a conviction upon such an information. That the words upon which perjury was predicated were not alleged to be either true or false; that the complaint failed utterly to allege that the perjury was in a matter material to the issue. That the evidence was utterly insufficient. That no witness had testified that Norton had expressed an opinion to him. That the worst that could be said against the defendant was that he was intelligent enough to read the newspapers and honest enough to not deny it, even when charged with perjury under the oath of the county attorney. Greene concluded by declaring that it is a well established proposition of law that the testimony of the defendant in perjury cases cannot be overcome by the testimony of any single witness, but that more than the testimony of one witness is necessary to constitute a preponderance of the testimony.

County Attorney Snell evidently realized that his case was rather weak and accordingly only spoke about five minutes, drawing principally upon the fact that Judge Field had instructed him to file the information against NOrton.

In announcing his decision Judge Cochran declared that the evidence introduced by the state was weak and introduced by the state was weak and insufficient and that no jury would ever convict Norton on it. He did not, therefore, feel it his duty to bind the defendant over and put the county to a large expense for nothing, and consequently, he would discharge Norton.

GRANT GETS JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT.

What it Costs the City to Grade in Front of a Man's Property.

Mrs. Josephine Steven's Damage Suit Against the Lincoln Street Railway Company Tried to a Jury in District Court

Grant Gets a Judgment

After a trial lasting through the greater part of two days that case of Patrick J. Grant against the city for damages to his property on Ninth and M streets, came to a close at noon yesterday, when the jury brought in a verdict for plaintiff for $500.

Suit for Personal Damages

The case of Mrs. Josephine Stevens against the Lincoln Street Railway company for $5,000 personal damages was begun before Judge Tibbets yesterday. Mrs. Stevens claims that something over a year ago she alighted from a street car awhile it was in motion and received personal injuries equivalent to the above sum. She claims that the car jerked suddenly and threw her down, while the company claims that she got off while the car was in motion. Mr. Burr appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Deweese for the defendence.

Equity Doeker.

The following cases were disposed of yesterday by Judge Chapman:

Mutual Benefit the Insurance Company vs. T. E. Miller et al. court finds due planting $1,186.97, which is first lien on the northeast quarter of section 11-10-12; also finds due the First National bank $2,282,90, which is a second lien on the northeast quarter of section 11-10-12; the northeast quarter of section 26-12-6, and a second lien of the southeast quarter of section 22-19-08; that the Security Investment company holds a first lien on the latter quarter, which it does not week to foreclose in this action; decree of foreclosure and sale ordered.

John Fitzgerald for himself and all other stockholders of the Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Company vs. The Fitzgerald & Mallor Construction Company and the Missouri Pacific Railway Company; set for trial June.

A. H. Weit & Co. vs. W. B. Barnes and Thomas L. McNeil; court finds due plaintiff on account for lumber and material $318.40, and that he is entitled to a lien upon lot 24of block 26 in the first addition to West Lincoln; decree of foreclosure and order of sale.

Capital City Planting Mills vs. Abbie P. Tiffany et. al.; court finds due plaintiff $148.99; decree of foreclosure and order of sale of lots 3 and 4 in block 7, East Lincoln.

Badger Lumber [?] vs. Joseph H. Turner et. al.: court finds due plaintiff $508.80; also finds due George $66.58, M. L. Trester $24,64 and R. S. Young $25.23; decree of foreclosure and order of sale.

Clark & Leonard investment company vs. Sara A. Batta et. al.; court finds due plaintiff $781.52 to Charles Hammond $8,202.70; also finds that the mortgage of the Clark & Leonard investment company for $6,500 is a first lien and that of Hammond second; decree of foreclosure and order of sale.

Motion Docket

The following entries were made yesterday on the motion docket:

State of Nebraska vs. Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy; motion for order allowing attorney a fees to L. W. Billingsley as one of the attorneys defending Monday McFarland.

John Smith vs. J. H. Foxworthy; motion to confirm sale of real estate.

George E. Badow vs. Charles H. Johnson et al; motion to make G. W. Buster party defendant.

D. L. Brace vs. H. W. Pynchon; motions in two cases to confirm sales, order deeds, to D. L. Brace and put him in possession.

Isaiah Hlae vs. Samuel McClay, administrator of the estate of H. C. Malone, deceased; death of plaintiff suggested and motion to revive judgment in the name of Sarah M. Hale, administratri x of the estate of Isaiah Hale.

Lay Calf.

The calf of the [?] docket for to-day is as follows:

Peer vs. Leavitt.

Spellman vs. Lincoln Rapid Transit Company.

Lew is vs. German Fire Insurance Company.

Mohr vs. Bauer et al.

Kennard vs. Fitzgerald.

Heiskell vs. Brace.

Cahn vs. C., B., [?]

Fitzgerald vs. Baydwin.

Fitzgerald vs. Meyers.

Moore vs. Ferguson.