220

REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE.

Lawyers in the Sheedy Murder Trial Earning Their Fees.

OPENING ARGUMENTS FOR THE STATE.

County Attorney Snell's Address to the Jury - The Defense Declares It Is a Question of Blood Money.

Lincoln, Neb., May 25. -[Special to The Bee.]- As immense crowd gathered in the court room this morning to hear the arguments in the Sheedy Murder Trial. Not only was every seat outside of the railing filled but also every bit of standing room occupied. All the space inside the railing was also occupied clear up to the judges desk.

The opening speech was made by County Attorney Snell and it occupied over two hours of a quarter. It is declared by his friends to be the best effort of his life. The following is a pretty full abstract of what he said:

"When darkness closed around this quiet city on the 11th of last January, there had been planned a most daring and cold-blooded murder. The intended victim was John Sheedy, an old citizen, whose home was on the corner of Twelfth and P Streets. Mr. Sheedy had spent the greater part of the day at his home. At about 7:30 o'clock he put on his overcoat, opened the front door, and then he was struck over the head with a heavy cane. He drew his revolver, fired five timed, but to no effect, being too dazed and stunned to take definite aim. The story of his suffering and his death has been narrated to you by a number of witnesses. John Sheedy was murdered, and I would ask you to just pause for a moment and think of the time and place. On sunday night, the night of all nights in the week when strife and ill feeling should be laid aside, and the place -his own home- where peace and good will should if anywhere, reign supreme. But none of these protected John Sheedy. On that holy Sabbath, as it was drawing to a close and as he opened his own door in fancid security, an assassin struck him. The one who delivered that blow had murder in his heart. He had deliberated upon it. He laid in wait and was malicious and vindictive. I cannot conceive of a more brutal death than Sheedy met, not can I conceive of anything more cowardly than striking a man as he comes from his own home. The following week many rumors were afloat as to the party who struck the blow and the motive that prompted it. Circumstances pointed toward McFarland, and he was arrested on Saturday night, the 17th, and Mrs. Sheedy on the following Sunday. Who are these defendants? McFarland is a colored man and a barber. The defendant, Mary Sheedy, was the wife of the deceased. Mr. Sheedy had employed McFarland to dress his wife's hair, and in this way the two prisoners at the bar became acquainted. They were alone for an hour or more each time Mrs. Sheedy's hair was dressed and she had an opportunity to study McFarland, sound him and determine in her own mind whether he would be faithful to her and her interests and courageous in the execution of her plans. We believe that the evidence has been of such as overwhelming character as to have convinced you minds early in the case that McFarland was the person who struck John Sheedy. That evidence apart from his confession, although in many respects circumstantial in its nature, can hardly be explained upon any reasonable hypothesis other than McFarland's guilt."

Mr. Snell then, by the testimony of P. J. Stepney, McFarland's cousin, that the day that he and Monday exchanged overcoats was the same day the latter bought the cane with which Sheedy was afterwards struck; the testimony of William Chinn, who was with McFarland from 11 p. m. to 2 a. m. the night of the assault, and who, noticing that McFarland was lame, and the negro speaking of having lost his cane. Mr. Snell then [con-?].

"Apart from his confession, every circumstance that has been testified to by the witnesses for the state on this branch of the case pointed to McFarland as a guilty party. Not one of those facts or circumstances have the defense sought to explain or deny. If ever a fact was established in a criminal prosecution it has been put beyond the pale of any doubt that McFarland was the man who lay in wait and murderously assaulted John Sheedy. Where was he at 7:30 on that Sunday night if not at Sheedy's? Not one syllable of testimony has been put in by him as to his whereabouts on that day.

"Why did McFarland strike Sheedy? Did Sheedy ever wrong him? Peter Crampton, a fellow barber, says that Sheedy always had Monday shave him and he paid him well, giving to him an extra 10 cents or 25 cents nearly every shave. Sheedy was McFarland's friend and the negro never would have struck him had it not been for a certain woman. That female was referred to by my friend Stearns in his opening statement as the sad, pale-faced, pensive lady, Mrs. Sheedy. After seeing her constantly for three weeks in this courtroom and noticing her demeanor, I would rather think he would speak of her as the cool-headed, steadynerved, desperate woman, who gave form and direction to McFarland's every movement. The defense would have you believe that Mrs. Sheedy was not one of the conspirators because one C. O. Whedon, a lawyer, never saw Mr. Sheedy pounding his wife or Mrs. Sheedy scolding her husband like a fishwife. Did any one ever suppose that Whedon would be at Sheedy's house during a family quarrel, or that any woman would ever tell such a cold-blooded, abrupt man as Wheden any of the troubles of her married life, except she came to him as an attorney to get him thawed out sufficient to become the confidante of any man to say nothing of a woman. Lew Franklin and Mrs. Hatch had each called only once at the Sheedy residence since Mrs. Sheedy's return from Buffalo, and of course they saw nothing out of the way.

"The witnesses the defense did not call to testify in that respect were conspicuous by their absence. One would have supposed that they would have called in the near friends of Mrs. Sheedy who visited her and whom she visited, but they did not. Even when Mrs. Sheedy's own sister was put on the stand, and although she has lived in the family a number of months, her mouth was sealed in that respect. Not one question was asked of her in that regard."

The testimony of Mrs. Hood was then referred to and the facts as brought out by that unwilling witness concerning the troubles between Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy were dwelt on at length. The coming of Walstrom to Lincoln was then taken up and the stream of Lincoln was then taken up and the matter of notes passing between the two contemplated. Mr. Snell insisted that if these notes had been of an innocent character that those received by Mrs. Sheedy would have been produced in evidence. The fact that Mrs. Sheedy was in the habit of continually sending liquors and elegant lunches to Walstrom's room, that she presented him with fine night shirts, hose and neckties and that Mrs. Carpenter had called Mrs. Sheedy ever to her house one evening when walstrom was there, was sufficient, Mr. Snell said, to show that their relations were not innocent.

"When Sheedy was struck," said Snell, "about the first thing Mrs. Sheedy did was to send for the priest and the next to notify Walstrom. When her husband was dying Klausner was sent to tell what the doctors had given up all hopes. When Sheedy's body was to be laid away in the cold and quiet grave Klauser was once more dispatched to tell Walstrom that MRs. Sheedy would not think anything more of him union he was present at the funeral. her realtionship with Walstrom can be explained upon an other hypothesis that that she was maintaining criminal relations with him priot to her husband's murder. It was because of him that the trouble had arisen between her and her husband. No woman could have had a stronger motive than mrs. Sheedy to put Mr. Sheedy out of the way. When love of her husband has departed from the female heart and been transferred to another she becomes desperate. In order to accomplish her purpose Mrs. Sheedy concluded that it could best be done through McFarland."

The confession of Monday McFarland was then detailed, and Mr. Snell said that the defense would doubtless effect astonishment that the story of criminal intimacy between the negro and Mrs. Sheedy would never be believed by any body. Mr. Snell then faced the prisoners and said:

"She wanted to be free. Her illicit lover Walstrom was in the city. She wanted Sheedy's property. How could she prevail upon McFarland to help her? Would she hesitate to prostitute her body when her soul was already eternally condemned? Would a woman who had murder in her heart halt or hesitate to committ adultery even with a black man? Now I will touch briefly on the testimony for the defense. These are divided into two classes: First, witnesses to prove the relations which existed between Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy; and, second, an abortive attempt to cast suspicion on Frank Williams and William Gleason, two gamblers. The latter half are divided into four classes: First, those put on the stand to prove that it was Carder's cane; second, those who were put on to disprove Goldwater's testimony; third, Mr. and Mrs. Hosman, who were put on the stand to swear that it was a white man who shot at Sheedy the week before the last assault; fourth, the testimony of the boys, Currie and Hitchcock, who were put on the stand to swear that they saw two men running south from the Sheedy residence. I will touch only on the latter four divisions."

The attorney then reviewed Carder's testimony at length concerning his identification of the cane and scouted the idea of such identification, since Carder couldn't tell his own handwriting when put on the witness stand. The bitter spirit that Carder has shown toward the prosecution was alluded to. The testimony of Butt concerning the reward that Goldwater was to receive was also discredited. Hosman's testimony that it was a white man who struck instead of a black man was shown to be conformatory with the darkey's story, as the descruption given by Hossman tallied in every way with that of Monday, except Hosman said that the fellow was a very dark complexioned white man. Mr. Snell the scouted the idea of Hosman being able to see a three days' growth of beard on a man's face on a dark night. The medical testimony was then reviewed.

"It is time," said the speaker, "That compression of the brain and morphine poisoning exhibit the same symptoms. But an examination of the brain would tell the tale. There were four physicians who were present at the time of the autopsy and the declare that morphine was the cause of John Sheedy's death. If death resulted from the blow or compression of brain they would have found blood clots there. They examined the brain and found none. We must remember, whether or not any poison was administered, that nevertheless both prisoners are guilty. Each is guilty either as principal in the one case or as an accessory in the other. These two defendants go hand in hand. If Mrs. Sheedy did not administer the poison, and if the blow killed John Sheedy, she is guilty as an accessory. She is the real instigator of the crime. It would have been impossible for Monday McFarland to have stood at the door waiting to kill John Sheedy that night unless he had a confederate in the house to give him a signal when to take his place. Any man would have been a fool to stand within a dozen feet of the street in a thickly settled neighborhood waiting to murder a man. He must have hid behind the lattice work awaiting the preconcerted signal. His nerve had been raised to the proper point by whisky given to him by this woman who has been brought before you charged with either murdering or abetting the murder of her husband.

"In conclusion let me say the interests involved are of great magnitude. The state is not asking for the shedding of innocent blood, but when you go to your jury rooms remember a monstrous crime has been committed; that John Sheedy was murdered; that he was murdered in cold blood without one single mitigating circumstance; that he was struck down in his own door. If this crime goes unpunished, who can say that it will not be repeated? Gentlemen, of the jury, give the case your best deliberation, and render a verdict that will satisfy your own conscience, and I feel it will satisfy a deeply interested and a wronged public, for every crime of this character strikes at the public security."

Judge Weir, attorney for Mrs. Sheedy, followed Mr. Snell, beginning in that easy, careful, smooth way which is betokened by his general bearing. After making a few preliminary remarks the speaker said: "We have under consideration the lives of two human beings and these lives must be disposed of by the consideration of the jury. It is one of the greatest responsibilities ever conferred upon this body of men and it gave me pleasure to read in your faces during the trial that you fully realized the responsibility." He then drifted into his reason for coming here and spoke of the true work of the officers of the law, complimenting the prosecution for the work done, pausing alone enough to define the line between persecution and prosecution. The first thing to which he called the attention of the jury was the law and the facts. "The jury," he said, "is the exclusive judge of the facts, the exclusive judge of the law, and when it comes to final considerations it should be guided by the definitions given them by the judge of the law? Thus the judge instructs that the defendants are presumed to be entirely innocent until proven guilty and the attention of the jury should not be diverted from this.

"It is often," he continued, "That our real as lawyers, our zeal to gain victory, causes us to overstep the bounds and cause misleading statements. Let this be watched, gentlemen of the jury, and when such things are done banish it from your minds. When you enter into the jury room let it be appermost in your minds that it was and is the duty of the prosecution to sweep away from your minds by evidence, all lurking suspicions, every vestige of the presumption of the innocence of these two defendants. The law requires you to use that reasonable doubt in the interest of the accused. Some of this testimony looks one way and some of it the other, but when you cannot under such circumstances decide, then the law requires the reasonable doubt to be exercised in the interest of the accused. It is divine law that ninety and nine guilty ones should escape rather than one innocent be punished."

At 2 o'clock Judge Weir, picking up the thread of discourse where two hours before he dropped it, said in substance that to all crimes there is a motive and the prosecution in this case ingeniously sets forth as the motive for this that John Sheedy and his wife lived in great discord and she wanted to get a divorce. That while in Buffalo she met and fell in love with one A. H. Walstrom, and this led her to stain her hands in the blood of her kind. This is the motive the prosecution offers. "And," continued he "with all the abic counsel, with all the efforts of experienced detective, the prosecution has failed utterly to bring out any substantial evidence, only the most remote circumstantial evidence. It is important that we should know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. It is a great principle in law that if the great chain of circumstances is lacking, the entire is of no effect. It must be one and continuous, every link in its proper place. John Sheedy was, in common language, a gambler, a peer to any in his profession in this city. His success appalled them and cause a jealousy to rankle in their bosoms. He was struck at his own door, and is it not quite as probable that some one other than his own loving wife was the cause of the final blow? Was it not Mr. Courtnay who testified that only a few days prior to the assault Sheedy received a letter which threatened his life unless he stopped 'trying to run the town?' Suspicion shortly after the crime fell upon Monday McFarland and his arrest followed. Then it was that an opportunity was offered the combination of detectives and officers to make money.

"Yes will remember McFarland was ar-

CONTINUED ON THIRD PAGE.

REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE.

Lawyers in the Sheedy Murder Trial Earning Their Fees.

OPENING ARGUMENTS FOR THE STATE.

County Attorney Snell's Address to the Jury - The Defense Declares It Is a Question of Blood Money.

Lincoln, Neb., May 25. -[Special to The Bee.]- As immense crowd gathered in the court room this morning to hear the arguments in the Sheedy Murder Trial. Not only was every seat outside of the railing filled but also every bit of standing room occupied. All the space inside the railing was also occupied clear up to the judges desk.

The opening speech was made by County Attorney Snell and it occupied over two hours of a quarter. It is declared by his friends to be the best effort of his life. The following is a pretty full abstract of what he said:

"When darkness closed around this quiet city on the 11th of last January, there had been planned a most daring and cold-blooded murder. The intended victim was John Sheedy, an old citizen, whose home was on the corner of Twelfth and P Streets. Mr. Sheedy had spent the greater part of the day at his home. At about 7:30 o'clock he put on his overcoat, opened the front door, and then he was struck over the head with a heavy cane. He drew his revolver, fired five timed, but to no effect, being too dazed and stunned to take definite aim. The story of his suffering and his death has been narrated to you by a number of witnesses. John Sheedy was murdered, and I would ask you to just pause for a moment and think of the time and place. On sunday night, the night of all nights in the week when strife and ill feeling should be laid aside, and the place -his own home- where peace and good will should if anywhere, reign supreme. But none of these protected John Sheedy. On that holy Sabbath, as it was drawing to a close and as he opened his own door in fancid security, an assassin struck him. The one who delivered that blow had murder in his heart. He had deliberated upon it. He laid in wait and was malicious and vindictive. I cannot conceive of a more brutal death than Sheedy met, not can I conceive of anything more cowardly than striking a man as he comes from his own home. The following week many rumors were afloat as to the party who struck the blow and the motive that prompted it. Circumstances pointed toward McFarland, and he was arrested on Saturday night, the 17th, and Mrs. Sheedy on the following Sunday. Who are these defendants? McFarland is a colored man and a barber. The defendant, Mary Sheedy, was the wife of the deceased. Mr. Sheedy had employed McFarland to dress his wife's hair, and in this way the two prisoners at the bar became acquainted. They were alone for an hour or more each time Mrs. Sheedy's hair was dressed and she had an opportunity to study McFarland, sound him and determine in her own mind whether he would be faithful to her and her interests and courageous in the execution of her plans. We believe that the evidence has been of such as overwhelming character as to have convinced you minds early in the case that McFarland was the person who struck John Sheedy. That evidence apart from his confession, although in many respects circumstantial in its nature, can hardly be explained upon any reasonable hypothesis other than McFarland's guilt."

Mr. Snell then, by the testimony of P. J. Stepney, McFarland's cousin, that the day that he and Monday exchanged overcoats was the same day the latter bought the cane with which Sheedy was afterwards struck; the testimony of William Chinn, who was with McFarland from 11 p. m. to 2 a. m. the night of the assault, and who, noticing that McFarland was lame, and the negro speaking of having lost his cane. Mr. Snell then [con-?].

"Apart from his confession, every circumstance that has been testified to by the witnesses for the state on this branch of the case pointed to McFarland as a guilty party. Not one of those facts or circumstances have the defense sought to explain or deny. If ever a fact was established in a criminal prosecution it has been put beyond the pale of any doubt that McFarland was the man who lay in wait and murderously assaulted John Sheedy. Where was he at 7:30 on that Sunday night if not at Sheedy's? Not one syllable of testimony has been put in by him as to his whereabouts on that day.

"Why did McFarland strike Sheedy? Did Sheedy ever wrong him? Peter Crampton, a fellow barber, says that Sheedy always had Monday shave him and he paid him well, giving to him an extra 10 cents or 25 cents nearly every shave. Sheedy was McFarland's friend and the negro never would have struck him had it not been for a certain woman. That female was referred to by my friend Stearns in his opening statement as the sad, pale-faced, pensive lady, Mrs. Sheedy. After seeing her constantly for three weeks in this courtroom and noticing her demeanor, I would rather think he would speak of her as the cool-headed, steadynerved, desperate woman, who gave form and direction to McFarland's every movement. The defense would have you believe that Mrs. Sheedy was not one of the conspirators because one C. O. Whedon, a lawyer, never saw Mr. Sheedy pounding his wife or Mrs. Sheedy scolding her husband like a fishwife. Did any one ever suppose that Whedon would be at Sheedy's house during a family quarrel, or that any woman would ever tell such a cold-blooded, abrupt man as Wheden any of the troubles of her married life, except she came to him as an attorney to get him thawed out sufficient to become the confidante of any man to say nothing of a woman. Lew Franklin and Mrs. Hatch had each called only once at the Sheedy residence since Mrs. Sheedy's return from Buffalo, and of course they saw nothing out of the way.

"The witnesses the defense did not call to testify in that respect were conspicuous by their absence. One would have supposed that they would have called in the near friends of Mrs. Sheedy who visited her and whom she visited, but they did not. Even when Mrs. Sheedy's own sister was put on the stand, and although she has lived in the family a number of months, her mouth was sealed in that respect. Not one question was asked of her in that regard."

The testimony of Mrs. Hood was then referred to and the facts as brought out by that unwilling witness concerning the troubles between Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy were dwelt on at length. The coming of Walstrom to Lincoln was then taken up and the stream of Lincoln was then taken up and the matter of notes passing between the two contemplated. Mr. Snell insisted that if these notes had been of an innocent character that those received by Mrs. Sheedy would have been produced in evidence. The fact that Mrs. Sheedy was in the habit of continually sending liquors and elegant lunches to Walstrom's room, that she presented him with fine night shirts, hose and neckties and that Mrs. Carpenter had called Mrs. Sheedy ever to her house one evening when walstrom was there, was sufficient, Mr. Snell said, to show that their relations were not innocent.

"When Sheedy was struck," said Snell, "about the first thing Mrs. Sheedy did was to send for the priest and the next to notify Walstrom. When her husband was dying Klausner was sent to tell what the doctors had given up all hopes. When Sheedy's body was to be laid away in the cold and quiet grave Klauser was once more dispatched to tell Walstrom that MRs. Sheedy would not think anything more of him union he was present at the funeral. her realtionship with Walstrom can be explained upon an other hypothesis that that she was maintaining criminal relations with him priot to her husband's murder. It was because of him that the trouble had arisen between her and her husband. No woman could have had a stronger motive than mrs. Sheedy to put Mr. Sheedy out of the way. When love of her husband has departed from the female heart and been transferred to another she becomes desperate. In order to accomplish her purpose Mrs. Sheedy concluded that it could best be done through McFarland."

The confession of Monday McFarland was then detailed, and Mr. Snell said that the defense would doubtless effect astonishment that the story of criminal intimacy between the negro and Mrs. Sheedy would never be believed by any body. Mr. Snell then faced the prisoners and said:

"She wanted to be free. Her illicit lover Walstrom was in the city. She wanted Sheedy's property. How could she prevail upon McFarland to help her? Would she hesitate to prostitute her body when her soul was already eternally condemned? Would a woman who had murder in her heart halt or hesitate to committ adultery even with a black man? Now I will touch briefly on the testimony for the defense. These are divided into two classes: First, witnesses to prove the relations which existed between Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy; and, second, an abortive attempt to cast suspicion on Frank Williams and William Gleason, two gamblers. The latter half are divided into four classes: First, those put on the stand to prove that it was Carder's cane; second, those who were put on to disprove Goldwater's testimony; third, Mr. and Mrs. Hosman, who were put on the stand to swear that it was a white man who shot at Sheedy the week before the last assault; fourth, the testimony of the boys, Currie and Hitchcock, who were put on the stand to swear that they saw two men running south from the Sheedy residence. I will touch only on the latter four divisions."

The attorney then reviewed Carder's testimony at length concerning his identification of the cane and scouted the idea of such identification, since Carder couldn't tell his own handwriting when put on the witness stand. The bitter spirit that Carder has shown toward the prosecution was alluded to. The testimony of Butt concerning the reward that Goldwater was to receive was also discredited. Hosman's testimony that it was a white man who struck instead of a black man was shown to be conformatory with the darkey's story, as the descruption given by Hossman tallied in every way with that of Monday, except Hosman said that the fellow was a very dark complexioned white man. Mr. Snell the scouted the idea of Hosman being able to see a three days' growth of beard on a man's face on a dark night. The medical testimony was then reviewed.

"It is time," said the speaker, "That compression of the brain and morphine poisoning exhibit the same symptoms. But an examination of the brain would tell the tale. There were four physicians who were present at the time of the autopsy and the declare that morphine was the cause of John Sheedy's death. If death resulted from the blow or compression of brain they would have found blood clots there. They examined the brain and found none. We must remember, whether or not any poison was administered, that nevertheless both prisoners are guilty. Each is guilty either as principal in the one case or as an accessory in the other. These two defendants go hand in hand. If Mrs. Sheedy did not administer the poison, and if the blow killed John Sheedy, she is guilty as an accessory. She is the real instigator of the crime. It would have been impossible for Monday McFarland to have stood at the door waiting to kill John Sheedy that night unless he had a confederate in the house to give him a signal when to take his place. Any man would have been a fool to stand within a dozen feet of the street in a thickly settled neighborhood waiting to murder a man. He must have hid behind the lattice work awaiting the preconcerted signal. His nerve had been raised to the proper point by whisky given to him by this woman who has been brought before you charged with either murdering or abetting the murder of her husband.

"In conclusion let me say the interests involved are of great magnitude. The state is not asking for the shedding of innocent blood, but when you go to your jury rooms remember a monstrous crime has been committed; that John Sheedy was murdered; that he was murdered in cold blood without one single mitigating circumstance; that he was struck down in his own door. If this crime goes unpunished, who can say that it will not be repeated? Gentlemen, of the jury, give the case your best deliberation, and render a verdict that will satisfy your own conscience, and I feel it will satisfy a deeply interested and a wronged public, for every crime of this character strikes at the public security."

Judge Weir, attorney for Mrs. Sheedy, followed Mr. Snell, beginning in that easy, careful, smooth way which is betokened by his general bearing. After making a few preliminary remarks the speaker said: "We have under consideration the lives of two human beings and these lives must be disposed of by the consideration of the jury. It is one of the greatest responsibilities ever conferred upon this body of men and it gave me pleasure to read in your faces during the trial that you fully realized the responsibility." He then drifted into his reason for coming here and spoke of the true work of the officers of the law, complimenting the prosecution for the work done, pausing alone enough to define the line between persecution and prosecution. The first thing to which he called the attention of the jury was the law and the facts. "The jury," he said, "is the exclusive judge of the facts, the exclusive judge of the law, and when it comes to final considerations it should be guided by the definitions given them by the judge of the law? Thus the judge instructs that the defendants are presumed to be entirely innocent until proven guilty and the attention of the jury should not be diverted from this.

"It is often," he continued, "That our real as lawyers, our zeal to gain victory, causes us to overstep the bounds and cause misleading statements. Let this be watched, gentlemen of the jury, and when such things are done banish it from your minds. When you enter into the jury room let it be appermost in your minds that it was and is the duty of the prosecution to sweep away from your minds by evidence, all lurking suspicions, every vestige of the presumption of the innocence of these two defendants. The law requires you to use that reasonable doubt in the interest of the accused. Some of this testimony looks one way and some of it the other, but when you cannot under such circumstances decide, then the law requires the reasonable doubt to be exercised in the interest of the accused. It is divine law that ninety and nine guilty ones should escape rather than one innocent be punished."

At 2 o'clock Judge Weir, picking up the thread of discourse where two hours before he dropped it, said in substance that to all crimes there is a motive and the prosecution in this case ingeniously sets forth as the motive for this that John Sheedy and his wife lived in great discord and she wanted to get a divorce. That while in Buffalo she met and fell in love with one A. H. Walstrom, and this led her to stain her hands in the blood of her kind. This is the motive the prosecution offers. "And," continued he "with all the abic counsel, with all the efforts of experienced detective, the prosecution has failed utterly to bring out any substantial evidence, only the most remote circumstantial evidence. It is important that we should know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. It is a great principle in law that if the great chain of circumstances is lacking, the entire is of no effect. It must be one and continuous, every link in its proper place. John Sheedy was, in common language, a gambler, a peer to any in his profession in this city. His success appalled them and cause a jealousy to rankle in their bosoms. He was struck at his own door, and is it not quite as probable that some one other than his own loving wife was the cause of the final blow? Was it not Mr. Courtnay who testified that only a few days prior to the assault Sheedy received a letter which threatened his life unless he stopped 'trying to run the town?' Suspicion shortly after the crime fell upon Monday McFarland and his arrest followed. Then it was that an opportunity was offered the combination of detectives and officers to make money.

"Yes will remember McFarland was ar-

CONTINUED ON THIRD PAGE.