Gilded Age Newspaper Articles

TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE

(Continued From Sixth Page.)

afraid he was going to shoot her. The evidence will also show to you that at that time she said to one of her neighbors that she was going to leave John Sheedy, and one afternoon she did go to the neighboring house and say that she had left John Sheedy. Now bear in mind the evidence will show that this, her leaving John Sheedy and all of this, took place when Walstrom, this young man that she had met in Buffalo, was in the city. The evidence will show to you that Walstrom's coming to this state was not chance. She had told different persons in this town that Walstrom would be here, the only conclusion being that she had made arrangements with him when they were in Buffalo that he would come here, or they had carried on a secret and surreptitious correspondence in this manner. She had spoken to a young man by the name of John Klausner, who will be a witness in this case, and told him that [?] Walstrom did come here that she wanted him, that is Klausner, to room with this young man Walstrom, and so when Walstrom did come to this city he went over to the Windsor hotel, where this young man Klausner was at work, sought him out and the two went together down here to a building known as the Heater block and there they picked out a room and roomed together. The evidence will also show to you that this Mr. Walstrom paid all of this room rent except about $1. It will also show to you that this young man carried notes back and forth between Mrs. Sheedy and this young man Walstrom. The prosecution does not know the contents of these notes. It will also show to you that Mrs. Sheedy sent down there to that room little delicacies for this young man Walstrom to eat, wines and cakes and knick-knacks and the like. And the evidence will also show to you that while this young man was here Mrs. Sheedy gave him presents, she also was seen with him at different times, and when this young man would call over at a neighbor's they would go and send up and Mrs. Sheedy would come over there. The evidence will also show to you that after this shooting that had been done, after Mr. Sheedy was shot at, some time prior to this assault, that Mrs. Sheedy had remarked that the people could not say Harry did it-that is what she called this young man Walstrom-that the people could not say Harry did it, because Harry was at work that night. The evidence will also show to you that the very night John Sheedy was assaulted and lay there upon his bed of pain, that Mrs. Sheedy sent word by Charlie Carpenter to this young man Walstrom that John Sheedy had been struck over the head by some one. The evidence will also show you that after John Sheedy was dead she sent another messenger to this young man Walstrom, and told him as he valued her friendship he must be present at John Sheedy's funeral. We believe on the part of the state that we can convince you and show to you that Mrs. Sheedy was tired of her husband; that she had become infatuated with this young man; that she had determined to get rid of John Sheedy, get his property and enjoy it with her new found lover. Monday McFarland was the agent she chose to employ to assassinate her husband. She gave him money and promised him more to incite his cupidity; allowed him the pleasures of her body in order to get his confidence and get him into her possession and to inflame his courage, and she with the nerve of Lady Macbeth would finish with the drug what had been begun with the club, if the blow that Monday gave him was not sufficient to cause his death. Now if poison was administered to Mr. Sheedy, who administered it? The evidence will show you that no one, so far as the state is aware, gave Mr. Sheedy anything except the doctors and herself, and all of the medicine that the doctor gave him was the sulfonal, ten grams at two doses, which I mentioned along in the first part of my statement to you. The dose that she gave him in the coffee-bear in mind the evidence will show you that immediately after that he passed into a stupor, comatose condition, from which he never recovered-and Mrs. Sheedy, when her husband was sinking, going to his long rest, remarked to different persons who were about the room that the doctors were giving him something; that the blow would not have caused his death. This is very brief as an outline of what we believe the evidence will show you. We believe the evidence will show you that John Sheedy was murdered, and that the defendants in this case murdered him. And if we show this to you beyond a reasonable doubt, we believe that it will be your duty as conscientious men and as upright jurors to return a verdict in accordance with such convictions, be the consequences and the penalty what they may."

Mr. Stearns for Mary Sheedy.

Mr. Stearns, in presenting the case on behalf of his client, Mary Sheedy, said:

"I venture to say that if any of you gentlemen of the jury ever sat upon a jury where a murder case was tried, or was ever in a court room during the progress of a trial, you never heard the outline of as weak testimony claiming that a murder had been committed and asking you to convict upon the testimony as outlined, as you have heard this afternoon. Now, gentlemen of the jury, it is perfectly proper for the state to outline what he expects to prove; it is perfectly proper for the defense to outline in a very brief manner the nature of the defense that we expect to interpose in a case of this kind. Now, we expect on the part of the defendant here, Mrs. Sheedy, who sits before you to-day with her pensive, sad face-we expect the testimony will show to you that her husband, John Sheedy, was a gambler; that he was a common gambler; that he had followed that business nearly all his life, if not all of it altogether; that he was a strong character of that kind, strong and influential among his associates; that he achieved distiction as a ruler over them; that he managed and controlled them; that he practically had a monopoly of the gambling business in this community: that by so doing he had made many malignant and bitter enemies among his own profession; that he had suspicions of members among his own profession; that a short time prior to the time he received the fatal blow he had private detectives in his employ to protect and guard him and keep him from receiving personal injury. We expect the testimony will show you satisfactorly that, as has been stated by the counsel for the state, a short time prior to the time this fatal blow was administered to John Sheedy someone made an assault upon him and fired a shot at him and that the bullet fell short of the mission intended by the would be assassin. We expect that it will appear in evidence that the man that fired that shot was a white man; that it will appear to your satisfaction by competent evidence, so there will be no question upon that point in your minds when you come to pass upon it. Now, as there is no crime that can be committed, or has ever been committed, unless there is a motive for it, they undertake to assign some kind of a motive, so far as Mrs. Sheedy was involved in this proceeding. What is the motive, now? They tell you that she was in Buffalo in July, 1890; she went there, as the evidence will show you, to receive medical treatment; while there she made a chance acquaintance of a young man, as has been stated Mr. Walstrom. It happens in after weeks that Mr. Walstrom came here for his health. Now then, gentlemen of the jury, there are some little circumstances that will connect Mrs. Sheedy with this man Walstrom; some insignificant circumstances. I undertake to show to you that there is nothing of any consequence, nothing that is material, that will come out, nothing that is criminating in its nature between the associations of Mrs. Sheedy and this man Walstrom. I undertake to say that the state will fail to prove any material allegation in that information, so far as anything criminating in its circumstances, or in its associations, or in its surroundings with this man Walstrom. Now then I suppose that is sufficient for me to say upon this branch of the testimony, as it will appear to you that this man Walstrom was arrested within a very short time after Mrs. Sheedy was arrested; that he had a full, fair, complete and perfect examination before the examining magistrate that bound these two defendants over, and that after a full and complete hearing, he had no hesitancy in discharging this man Walstrom. And I want to say to you that the rule of law is reversed that applies to an examining magistrate, for it only requires probable cause, probable belief, probable guilt to bind a man over to answer to the district court; but here it requires that you be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Now I want to say this, that if Providence should mysteriously remove the heads of any one of the many greatly respected families in this community there would be ready at hand many circumstances and many proofs that are more convincing of a criminal motive in the minds of those men who are taken off in that way, than existed in this case, as you will find when the full testimony is completely before you. Now, gentlemen of the jury, there is another feature in this case which I think will fully appear in testimony before you that will convince you that this is not a prosecution in any fair sense introduced here and managed by the state. You have but to look to the east and you see two very able counsel who have been retained as private counsel to assist the state in this case. It will appear to you, gentlemen of the jury, and your complete and perfect satisfaction, that this is a persecution; that it is the cupidity of John Sheedy's brothers and sisters; that it is their cupidity and desires that influence them; that it is these impulses that have been working and have brought to bear in this case to encompass a conviction of this sorrow stricken, sad-faced woman that appears here before you to-day, in order that they may get the whole of John Sheedy's estate instead of the half of it. It is blood money; it is a conspiracy to convict for the love of money, illustrating the old adge that "The love of money is the root of all evil" more pertinently than the presentation of it has ever come so your observation before. They have not allowed her one cent to maintain her. When the probate court has made her an allowance, a reasonable allowance for her maintenance and support, out of the estate of John Sheedy, the administrator representing the heirs has appealed from it, represented by one of the learned counsel who appears to prosecute this case. They refused to let her have any support; they refused to let her have any say about the managment of this estate or control of it, or have any voice in the management of it whatever, and then it will appear to you by satisfactory and convincing proof. Now then, gentlemen of the jury, you must remember, in analyzing and sifting this testimony, that you must be convinced of the truth of every material allegation in every one of the counts in this information before you can convict. You must remember that the state is large and powerful, and while it is the duty of the state to prevent crime and to punish its commission, no great harm will come to the state if an occasional criminal escapes. How is it on the other hand? How is it when an innocent person is convicted of death and is sentenced to be hung or imprisoned when they are innocent? Why, it shocks the sensibilities unspeakably. You remember what has been said, often and often, that "it is better to let ninety-nine guilty ones escape rather than have one innocent suffer." Remember the sentiment of this littel stanza -and let it govern you, and control you, and influence you all through your examination and investigation of this case:

"In men whom men condemn as ill, I find so much of goodness still; In men whom men pronounce divine I find so much of sin and blot, I hesitate to draw the line Between the two, where God has not."

Colonel Philpott then spoke briefly but earnestly in behalf of his client, Monday McFarland, denouncing with the utmost violence the methods employed by Officer Malone and Mayor Graham to secure Monday's confession, and ripping the counsel for the state up the back. He claimed that Malone and Melick were conspirators to secure the reward.

At the conclusion of the address Judge Field adjourned court until 9 a. m. to-day.

Notes of the Trial.

Judge Field will adjourn court to-morrow long enough to permit all to attend the presidential reception.

Myron E. Wheeler has been secured by Reporter Mullon to report the testimony, as the former desires to catch up with past court work. It will be as well done as man can do it.

It is said that the eleven men who were in the jury room Tuesday night, a week ago, took a vote on their ideas of the case and that every man favored the conviction of the darkey and six of the eleven were convicting Mrs. Sheedy. The only man now on the jury who was then a member is Van Campin.

R. I. Smith, Machine Works, Tel. 531.

J. F. Ferris, stenographer and typewritist, room 2, Newman block. Tel. 715.

Special sale one-third off on hammocks, foot balls, base balls and bats at C. M. Leighton's, 145 South Tenth street.

The twenty-five or more lots offered at public auction on next Friday are in block 1, 2, 19 and 20, Kinney's O street addition; lots A and P Hawkeye addition, and others near by. They will positively be sold on Friday, May 15 at 2 p. m. Terms easy. See them or call on A. N. Wycoff, Richards block.

A GOOD SUBSTITUTE

instead of a cocktail in the morning, "We fellows at the club" taper off by taking a refreshing drink of Sulpho-Saline.

CONTRACTORS,

Builders and painters. Call at the Western Glass and Paint company for estimate on glass and paint. We will save you money.

Children Cry for Pitcher's Castoria.

TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE

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

THE JURY SECURED IN THE SHEEDY CASE.

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

Juror Norton Discovered to Have Talked Himself Into a Bad Predicament.

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

He Saw $500 in the Position of Juror Opening Statements of What the Respective Attorneys Anticipate Their Ability to Prove.

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

The Testimony to Begin To day,

There were few spectators present yesterday morning when court opened in the Sheedy murder case. Mrs. Sheely had come in escorted only by Mr. [Biggenting?], the wealthy old uncle from Boise City, and her sister, Mrs. Morgan, the other sisters, Mrs. Dean and Mrs. [Barber?], being a trifle late in arriving at the court house. Monday McFarland found the escort of Jailer Langdon good enough for him.

Mrs. Sheedy was somewhat more nervous than at any previous time since the trial, and Monday preserved his usual [??] gravity throughout.

The first hour of work in completing the panel of jurors was dull enough, but at the end of that time the lively scenes forshadowed in THE JOURNAL of Sunday morning began to dawn in the procedings, [rather?] the promise thereof after over an hour of consultations among all of the attorneys, during which time the court and attendants were [?] and the spectators were perplexed and impatient, the first extra sensational feature of the trial was sprung in the sworn charges preferred against Juror A B. Norton of Davey, which led to his subsequent release from the panel and his arrest. From that time on the proceedings were mroe interesting, until at: the opening statements of counsel, outlining their respective cases, were completed and the jury cautioned to refrain from discussions of the case and the bailiffs cautioned to permit them to read no local papers.

The jury to whom the case will be finally submitted comprises James Van [Canipin?] of Little Salt precinct, J. C. Jensen of Lincoln and George Albrecht of Highland, who wee members of the first panel of 150 drawn; Fal Young and John Robertson of Panama. C. S. Cadwallader of Little Sat, Luther Battten of Oak, James Johnson of Grant and Thomas Riley of Buda, all members of the third panel.

To secure this jury, 364 men have passed through the judicial sweat box on the revolving chair usually reserved for the use of witnesses, out of 486 summoned on the regular and three special panels.

The Morning Session.

Thomas Lynch, jr., a young farmer and the first juror called, said that he had formed an opinion from what he had read and heard read; had either read the confession or heard it read, but it had escaped his memory, as had also his [?]. He was excused.

[?] Whiting of this city, a commercial tourist for a St. Louis tobacco house, had no scruples against the death penalty or circumstantial evidence; had read all the details and had a sample of his opinion with him. He was excused.

E. B. Barney, a dealer in rubber; had an opinion and wasn't needed.

C. S. Cadwallader of Raymond, a farmer, supposed he had expressed himself about the case, but couldn't say it was an opinion believed he had read the confession and part of the testimony about the inquest and prliminary hearing; thought he had formed an opinion therein. It would take some first-hand evidence to remove that opinion. The defense held a long consultation over this witness and finally challenged, but withdrew the objection and he took his seat in the box.

The thirty-second and last regular challenge of the defense ruined the financial hopes of Jolin H. Hart, and he flitted because Colonel Philpott of Monday's counsel didn't hanker after him.

M. H. Baldwin of University' place was the next called and said he has formed an opinion from what he had [caught?] flitting around through the suburbs. He was excused on the states challenge for cause.

J. R. Roscoe of Denton precint, a farmer, knew Mr. Sheedy and had formed an opinion from having read McFarland's confession, and if that was true he supposed they were guilty. He was promptly tired.

H. A. Larriner of Raymond, a farmer, had formed an opinion on what he had read. He had read the case all through up to the last day. He was excused.

A. J. Webster was excused because he was something of a lawyer himself.

William [Heitman?] of Olive Branch precint, had read the confession and testimony and knew he had an opinion, therefore the court bade him depart.

Luther Batten of Raymond, a farmer, couldn't say whether he had or hadn't formed an opinion; had read the News and the Call and might have formed an opinion, but it was not a well developed one. He had no prejudice, and if selected as a juror, thought he could render a verdict based on the law and the evidence, but wasn't sure, as he had read a great deal about the case and it was a pretty well tangled up case. Had talked with Melick about it a long time since but it had not left an opinion. He had no scruples against the indiction of the death penalty; believed hanging was justice for some people; couldn't say he would or would not hang on circumstantial evidence if it convinced him he would return a verdict accordingly. He was passed by both sides and filled the panel, it was supposed, as far as any further challenge of the defense was concerned, and the court announced:

"The states' last challenge."

Then there was a mysterious movement among the attorneys for the state. After vainly endeavoring to conduct a secret conference around the attorneys' [?] they retired to the private office of Judge Field to confer. Pretty soon Mr. Snell came out, secured his hat and went away, presumably to make some investigation or inquiry.

The presumption was correct and over an hour was allowed to flit by into oblivion [ere?] there was a return into court by the attorneys. In the secret conferences, held in the court's private office all of the attorneys participated at times. The promised [?] revelation came with refreshing strength when it developed in a short time that the discussion was over Juror A. B. Norton. The state was fortified with a number of affidavits to prove that Norton, prior to the begining of the trial, had expressed an opinion. In fact he had launched upon the public a number of opinions. One of them was to the effect that Mrs. Sheedy was guilty and deserved to be hung. Another was that both were gulity, while to still another he had said that "lie would hang the d--d nigger and let the woman go free." These aftidavits were kept among the attorneys for some time, but it was apparent that a storm was brewing in the little room where the conference was being held. The state [?] the juror, removed and didn't wish to exercise its sole remaining challenge in that direction. The defense insisted that the state exercised its challenge for his removal.

The jury was removed from the court at a [?] request of counsel and Mr. Lamberson entered the following notion:

"We move to exclude the juror, A. B. Norton of Davey, for the reasin that he has formed and expressed an opinion touching the guilt or innocence of the accused--both of them--at numerous [?], which fact was not disclosed in his examination in the voir dire. And not withstanding the fact that he swore on that examination that he had not formed or expressed any opinion, that he had not read the newspaper account except stray sketches; that he had not read what purported to be the confession [?] the testimony taken either at the preliminary hearing or before the coroner's jury, and in support of that motion I have six affidavits."

These affidavits were then read by the speaker and were certainly of a starting nature, two of them being as follows:

"G. A. Swvey, being first duly sworn on oath says that he as a resident and citizen of Rock Creek precinct and has been since 1887 that he has known one A. B. Norton who is now on the panel of jurors, in the above entitled case, for three years or more; that on or about the 1st day of May, 1891, said Norton had a conversation with this affiant when they were on their way home from the city of Lincoln; that at said time said Norton had been drawn and served as one of the special from which a jury in, said cause was to be chosen that said Norton said he was going to serve on said jury, if possible; that a [?] the city of Lincoln had told him that there was $500 on it, and that he would hold the jury until he got money for his verdict; that the Sheedy's were rich and that if they could convinct Mrs. Sheedy they would get the money, and that he was agoing to have a part of it."

"R. B. Crawford, [?] first duly sworn, says that he has lived up the town of Davey about two years and in the county since 1871, excepting three years; that he is acquanted with one A. B. Norton, who is now one of the panel of eleven chosen in the above entitled case and has known him for about eighteen months; that the same day that said Norton got his summons to appear as a juror in said cause he was at the blacksmith shop of this affiant in the town of Davey; that said Norton told this affiant at said time and place that if he could get to serve on the Sheedy jury he would make some money out of it; that this affiant supposed from what Norton said and the manner of his saying it, that he would take money for his verdict from either side that would pay him for it."

The remaining affidavits were by W. H. Tarball, Patrick McGill, James O'Brien and Phillip Opp, all business men of Davey, who had been present at varitimes when accounts of the case had been read in the presence of Norton, and each of these had heard him express such opinions as "Oh--I! the woman will get clear and the nigger will hang," "The d--d nigger is guilty and ought to hang," and other similar expressions.

Mr. Strode objectified to the entering of any such motion and asked that it be reduced to writing. He further objected to the reading of any affidavits in support of such in [imption?], for the reason that said juror had been passed and accepted as a juror and this motion was made and sought to be brought to the attention of the court after the defendants had exhausted all their peremptory challenges and for the further reason that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain any such motion and the motion was proper and incompetent for any purpose whatever, and also the affidavits in support thereof; and further that the state had yet one challenge and has the power to remove the object on able juror.

The court overruled the objection.

Mr. Lambertson--I have here the testimony of Norton on his voir dire exmaination.

The testimony was read, wherein Norton testified that he had not read the confession nor expressed an opinion, and Lambertson continued:

"I think it was first on Saturday that it came to our ears through a communication, and also by the representation of a gentleman that Mr. Norton had formed and expressed an opinion." Since that time we have been as diligent as possible to get at the exact facts, and only obtained them a few minutes before the motion was made, null although the conversations and opinions of the juror would seeth in some respects to be favorable in the state, certainly as against one of the defendants, and perhaps favorable as to the other, but whatever might to the opinion, we flet it was our duty to first call the attention of the counsel of the opposite side so that this juror might be excused without any scandal, if necessary by agreement. And we laid before them to consent to have the juror excused. This they were not willing to do unless we would extend to them the thiry-third premptory challenge, which we declined upon the ground that it was not our fault that this man had passed into the panel and had violated his oath. Now, recognizing as we do the importance of this trial, and the fact that it may cost the country thousands and thousands of dollars, nobody knows how much time and expense of counsel and the issue--none can be more important--the matter of life and death, hanging upon this verdict--we felt that whatever mgiht be the opinion of this man, whether for or against us, as to one or both of the defendants, that we ought to call the attention of the court to this juror and have him excluded from the panel, so that we could enter upon this trial with an unbiased, unprejudiced and an honest journey, and so that when the end comes we can feel that the verdict we have is an honest verdict, returned by the peers of these defendants, and therefore we ask that this man be excluded from the panel. And if I could express certainly my own convinction about it, I could wish not only that that man be excluded from the panel, but that he be put into the hands of the officers, there to be prosecuted for perjury and for a violation of oath. It is too frequent, it seems to me, that [jurymer?] come into the box; it is too frequent that men get upon this panel and betray the trust and confidence that is imposed upon them, making a mockery of justice, and I would not only like to see him excluded from the panel, but deals with according to the law. Now on the question of a peremptory challenge, Prior to the time these gentlemen had made their last premptory challenge we asked them to wave, as we desired to make a motion--and I spoke to the court about it--but they want on and made their challenge. Before we had time to make this motion and before we could get this evidence, we had to break the Sabbath, but we thought the end justified the means. And now it seems to me that, they ought not to have a thirty-third challenge, but I think in order to be fair, entirely fair strictly and overwhelmingly fair, we ought first to exhuast our peremptory challenge, and then the twelfth men be chosen without having a premptory challenge. That would be entirely fair. The fact that this man has gotten upon the jury is not our fault. We are not responsible for it at all, but they should not be given the advantage because a corrupt man has sneaked into the jury box. But we ought to exhaust our premptory challenge before the man is excused. Then we stand exactly upon the same basis and upon the same bottom, perfectly impartial and fair, neither of us having a challenge upon the last man that comes in to the box."

Mr. Philpott responded in behalf of Monday McFarland, as follows:

"The defendants object to the excusing of this juror. With all the beautiful remarks that this gentleman has made and how fair and just and honest he presented to us some of those affidavits--possibly some of us may have seen all of them. I waited upon him, represented the attorneys for the defendants, and said we had concluded this: That the man ought to be executed. But you have waited until we have lost our last challenge. We are willing that he shall go off the stand, but let us have one more peremptory challenge. Now what you are trying to get is, as we deem it, an advantage. He says he told us about it before we had exhuasted our last challenge. He didn't. They broke the Sabbath getting this up; they say they came into this court this morning with these papers in their pockets. They knew of it all the time. They waited until the last moment and when it was our turn to challenge they said, 'Wait.' We waited. Finally one of the defendants said: 'Why wait?' and they said: 'You needn't.' And then I said, 'The challenge is [?].' Without intimating a word that they had got an affidavit, without imitating a single word that there was a corrupt juror in the box, you waited until it was done, and then after that you called us in consultation. Do you call that fair? Do you think you dealt honestly and fairly with us? If you had said this morning when you met us: 'See here, we have got a corrupt man. Wait before you exhaust your last challenge. Don't do it until we consult.' Then you would have acted like an honerable gentleman and treated us fairly. I say, you didn't do it. And all this is brought around because you desire to gain an advantage over us. You say it will be fair to do as you say; It is not fair. He seeks to get the last two gentlemen there. He gets the advantage of it. He says: 'Now we will exhaust our challenge.' And then comes on the last man that ought to have come. Then there is to come another, which is the advantage you seek of us and what you have been working for. If there is anybody trying to play a game or hoodwink anybody and take the advantage, you are the men. What we ask for is to have another challenge, so as to place us on equal footing with the state, and where we would have been and you told us the facts in time."

Mr. Hall for the state also spoke to the motion and in the course of his remarks said that he could not understand why Colonel Philpott could reasonably object to the removal from the panel of a man who had said that his client ought to be hung.

"There is no use [trilling?]," remarked Judge Field in a decided tone of annoyance "the juror has got to be excused. I will also suggest that the county attorney examine this man and if he has violated the law on perjury, I desire that you file an information against him and have him arrested ere the coming in of the jury this afternoon."

Strode: "There is no objection made to the excusing of Mr. Norton."

The court announced that the defense would be allowed a challenge [?] to Norton's successor if it was desired.

How Norton Got His $500.

Acting upon the instructions of Judge Field, County Attorney Snell, during the noon hour, prepared an information charging perjury before Judge Stewart, which he filed in Justice Cochran's court. When the jury came out of the jury room at 2 p. m. Norton was placed under arrest. Deputy Sheriff [Hijexie?] escorted him to the office of Justice Cochran, where he was attended by his attorney, R. J. Greene. In a short time J. H. McMurtry came in, accompanied by General J. R. Webster, and Norton was placed under bonds of $500 to appear for trial May 25. Mr. McMurtry becoming surety for his appearance.

The Afternoon Session.

When court convened at 2:10 p. m. there were more spectators present than at any time since the opening of the trial. The number of ladies in attendance was larger, also, than on any previous day.

When the defendants came in every eye was directed toward Mrs. Sheedy. Her three sisters had evidently anticipated the presence of a critical audience of feminine observers, and Mrs. Morgan and Mrs. Dean appeared in decidedly smarter costumes than heretofore.

When the jury filled in, it was noticed that Mr. Norton was not among them. He had been placed under arrest by a deputy sheriff as the jury, came out of its room at 2 o'clock to return into court.

The work of choosing his successor was immediately begun in accordance with the understanding that the defense should have an additional peremptory challenge as to him alone ere the [?] be called upon to exercise its final challenge.

L. Waite of Olive Branch, a school teacher, was excused for having opinions of the case.

William Beason, a plasterer at Malcolm, had read the confession and testimony. He was excused.

Ross Crabtree of Stevens Creek precint, had an opinion based on the confession and published testimony. He was allowed to go.

M. H. Mills of Waverly, a stock raiser, had formed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused and had no scruples against the death penalty. He had read no papers concerning the Sheedy murder and took none except the Nebraska Farmer. He could presume defendants to be innocent and thought he could render a fair and impartial verdict on the law and the evidence. The defense evidently didn't want this [?], but his answers were [?] and he was accepted.

The defense was then permitted to make the additional challenge as to this man only and they let him go, but not without protesting that they should be given a whack at the entire panel and the state had entered an objection to the allowance of the thirty-third challenge.

George W. Gaskell of Waverly, a millet, had formed and expressed an opinion about the case that he [remembered?] but wouldn't swear positively; had had a major portion of the confession and testimony; had some scruples against the death penalty on circumstantial evidence; he didn't believe the confession he had read,

WOOL DRESS GOODS AT ABOUT HALF PRICE!

Including Plaids, Stripes and Brocades.

HERPOLSHEIMER & CO. EXPOSITION DEPARTMENT STORES

TELEPHONE: 176. OFFICE: 1001 O STREET.

MOVING HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PIANOS A SPECIALTY

and the state challenged him. In reply to the attorneys for the defense he thought he could render an impartial verdict, as he was without bias; he had meant to say that on convincing circumstantial evidence he would not refuse to bring in a verdict of guilty. Witness had known John Sheedy; had sold butter to him; also knew Mrs. Sheedy. Neither the state or Monday's attorneys were satisfied with the juror and he was excused.

E. J. Markell was excused for his opinions.

James Johnson of Cheney, a young farmer had never formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt of the accused, and was not opposed to the capital punishment; never read anything in the papers unless it related to fast forses. Juror had no bias and was passed.

The state's last challenge and the last allowed in the case was directed to Asher W. Widdifield. It hit him and he fled.

William Brown of Cheney, foreman on the B. & M., had an opinion that was not based on the confession nor the testimony formerly adduced; had no objections to hanging for murder; had read the confessions of Monday and didn't take very much stock in it. It would take some evidence to remove the opinion he had formed. He was excused.

William Brinton had formed and expressed no opinion as to the defendants guilt but had conscientious scruples against the death penalty and would refuse to render a verdict inticing it.

Thomas Riley, of Sprague, had no scruples against the death penalty; had read a little about the case, but not the confession or testimony of witnesses; had never talked with anyone about the case; had no bias or prejudice and knew nothing of the merits of the case; could presume the defendants innocent and give them a fair trial. He was accepted.

It was 3:10 p. m. when the long and tedious work of securing a jury was effected and the twelve good men and true, [yoemen?] and peers, were submitted to the oath. The panel comeprises James Van Campen, George Albrecht, J. C. Jensen, Jacob Croy, Albert Ward, Henry L. Wilis, Ed Young, John Robertson, C. S. Cadwallader, Luther Batten, James Johnson and Thomas Riley.

For a few moments there was a murmur of suppressed excitement over the completion of this long task, fraught with such grave importance. After the oath was administered all over jurors summoned in the case were excused and an oppressive silence immediately fell upon the audience, which had meantime increased to beyond the seating capacity of the court room.

"The attorneys will present their opening statements remarked Judge Field. one could have heard a pin drop as County Attorney Snell faced the jury and related in detail the circumstances surrounding the case. His address was as follows:

The State's Opening

"Gentlemen of the Jury: We have been engaged now since last Monday morning in the selection of a jury to try this case and I presume that you are impressed with the importance of the case, sitting here as you have and seeing the number of men that have been examined as jurors, and after they have all been examined and the challenges have been used on the part of the state and on the part of the defense, you men are selected to pass upon the issues that are involved in this trial. Possibly sume of you knew personally John Sheedy. He came to this town in an early day and on the 11th day of January of this year at about half past seven o'clock, as he stepped out of his own door in this city, he was assualted, struck over the left eye with some blunt instrument. The wound was dressed by two of our physicans, who at the time did not consider it serious. At 4 o'clock, however, Monday morning his symptoms were alarming and at ten o'clock that evening he died. In the criminal annals of this county, yea I might say of this state, there never was a more brutal, cowardly, murder than that of John Sheedy. Immediately after the wounds were dressed he went to bed, and the evidence will show you that he was given three doses of medicine known by the name of "sulfonal," to qeuit his favor and allay his pain, that he might get some rest. The first dose was given him about eleven o'clock, and the second near twelve o'clock, and these were given by his attending physician, Dr. Hart. At nearly one o'clock the third dose was given in some coffee, which was prepared by the defendant. Mary Sheedy, in this case. That he retained upon his stomach, and very shortly passed into what was at the time supposed to be a natural sleep produced by sulfonal. At about four o'clock the next mroning--this was given at one o'clock--a nephew of the deceased, young Dennis Sheedy, called the attention of the attending physician to the fact that his uncle was breathing very heavily. It was then discovered that John Sheedy was unconsious, that he was lying in a comatose condition, that he was breathing only about six times a minute, that his eyes were closed and his limbs were paralyzed. In other words he was suffering from all of the symptoms of morphine poisoning or compression of the brain caused by the blow, the two being very similar. I might add, however, that one symptom usually presented in morphine poisoning was absent, namely the contraction of the pupils of the eye. However, the expert testimony on that point will be that the pupils are not always contracted. Somem times in fact in the later stages of the case they are as often dilated perhaps as contracted, the muscles and nerves of the eye become paralyzed, and it is in just the condition that the pupil of the eye happens to be at the time. The expert testimony that will be introduced in this case will probably not be altogether harmonious as to the cause of Mr. Sheedy's death but it will all be within the variations or counts rather, set up in the information. Th information which is filled in this case charges the defendant, Monday McFarland, and Mary Sheedy, who was the wife of the deceased, with murdering Johns Sheedy. Originally the information contained six counts, but the first two--(Philpott objects). I say those as to two counts were withdrawn from the consideration fo the jury and they have been so withdrawn by order of the court, but the third count charges the defendant, Monday McFarland, with striking John Sheedy over the head with a cane and killing him, and also charges the defendant, Mary Sheedy, with being an accessory to that murder. The fourth count charges Mary Sheedy with the killing of John Sheedy by administering to him morphine, and the defendant, Monday McFarland as an accessory to the murder. The fifth count charges Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy both, jointly as principals, with the killing by the cane and by the administering of morphine, and the sixth and last count charges Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy jointly with the killing of John Sheedy by striking him over the head with a cane. Perhaps it might be well for us to pause here for a short time and get definitely fixed in mind what is meant by the principal and what by an accessory before the fact. You will observe that Mrs. Sheedy is charged once as a principal, once as an accessory before the fact and twice as a principal jointly with the defndant Monday McFarland; likewise Monday McFarland is charged twice as accessory before the fact, once as a principal and twice as a principal jointly with the defendant Mrs. Sheedy. As I understnad it, by the laws of this state one is a principal who does the crime, or commits the act himself, to illustrate it we will say by a case of stealing--and I want to add further to that the one who is present at the time aiding, advising and abetting the other to commit the act. Now for illustration, if A. goes into a man's store and steals money or anything that is in that store, he does the act himself, and under the definition he is the principal, and if B., on the other hand, stays on the outside and watches in order to give a signal for the other man who is in there, the two working together, he likewise is a principal, although he did not go into the store and take the money, and is a principal. Or to illustrate it by this case: If Monday McFarland hit John Sheedy over the head with the cane and killed him, Monday McFarland would be a principal. If the evidence would show also that Mary Sheedy at the time of the delivery of this blow by Monday was in the Sheedy house and was signaling or doing anything to aid Monday McFarland in the doing of what he was doing, as, for instance, the raising of the indown curtain to let Monday know Lheedy was about to come out of the house, she would also be a principla, although she would not have anything to do with the giving directly of the blow. An accessory before the fact as I understand, is one who is not present at the time that the time has advised or aided or encouraged the execution of the crime. To illustrate that by this case: If the evidence should disclose to you, as it will be brought out here by the witnesses, that Mrs. Sheedy gave poison to Mr. Sheedy, but that prior to that time Monday McFarland had struck Mr. Sheedy over the head and disabled him in order that Mrs. Sheedy might follow up what he had done by the administering of poison, then Monday McFarland would be an accessory before the fact and Mrs. Sheedy would be the principal; or again, if it is shown that Monday McFarland delivered the blow that killed Mr. Sheedy, but prior to that time Mrs. Sheedy had employed Monday McFarland to do it, or , had advised him to do it, she would be an accessory before the fact, although she did not know that Monday McFarland was going to do it, or might not have been in the house at all.

So much for the information or what might be called the law of the case. Now as to the evidence against the defendants--first as to the evidence against Monday McFarland: The evidence will show that Monday McFarland was a barber, and has lived in this city some eleven years, and that he was well known by Mr. Sheedy. It will also disclose the fact that for the time prior to this assault upon Mr. Sheedy, Monday McFarland was wearing different clothes, not his own. On one occasion he would have [worn?] one kind of a coat and on another occasion he would have on another. And his hat--it [ought?] be a hat of it might be a cap. It seemed that he was trying to disguise himself for some purpose. It will also show to you that he was seen very often on the corner of Thirteenth and I streets or near, and bear in mind that the Sheedy residence is near the corner of Twelfth and P, just on the opposite side of the block; and when he would be seen there he would try to prevent others from recognizing him. When anyone would come along he would step behind a tree or telephone pole or something; of that kind to prevent recognition. The evidence will show to you that immediately after the assualt upon Mr. Sheedy Monday McFarland changed his overcoat that prior to that times he had gotten an overcoat of one P. J. Stepney, and immediately after the assault, was made upon Mr. Sheedy he exchanged the overcoat and got his own. The evidence will show to you that this P. J. Stepney is a relative of Monday's, namely, a cousin. The evidence will also show to you that Tuesday prior to the assault upon Mr. Sheedy, which occurred on Sunday, Monday McFarland purchased of one Hyman Goldwater, who is a pawnbroker in this city, an iron cane, which was wound with leather, and that the cane had certain peculiar marks upon it by which it could afterwards be, and was afterwards, identified. And this cane, which was purchased on Tuesday, was found upon the Sheedy steps by the officers of this city immediately after the assault was made upon Mr. Sheedy. The evidence will further show you that Mr. McFarland or Monday McFarland told one of his friends on this Sunday night, immediately after this assault, that he had lost his cane, and that he was used up with rheumatism. He probably fell in getting off of the Sheedy porch, which would account for his being used up, or, as he explained it, his rheumatism, and then finally we have his full confession that he did do just what he has."

Col. Philpott interrupted and protested that while he conceded the right of the state to say that there was a confession, not one word of what that confession contained was permissible until the court had rules upon its computency. The court sustained the objection against the protest of Misters Snell and Lambertson. Mr. Snell proceeded: "I believe that the evidence in this case will show you that [same?] [?] was trying to take the life of John Sheedy. A short time before this assault was made upon him he was shot at by some one, and the testimony of the [?] girl who was there at the house will be that some one was prowling around the house and she was afraid to go out after dark. [?] was a conspiracy, in other words, and foot to get rid of John Sheedy. Now what motive had the defendant, Monday McFarland, to strike John Sheedy over the head with this cane? His [??] we look at and is we think the evidence will show you, is what [?] the defendant in this case, Mary Sheedy. The evidence will show you that John Sheedy had always been a friend of Monday McFarland; that Sheedy shaved at McFarland's shop and that he always [literally?] rewarded him; and that Mr. Sheedy also had Monday McFarland go down to his house car for his wife's hair; and we believe that this, on the part of Mr. Sheedy, the sending him there, is shat initially ripened into the conspiracy that took the life of John Sheedy."

Colonel Philpott objected to give reference to a conspiracy as the [??] charging conspiracy had been [?] out, but the court and that [??] only not for reference [??] but that in his final [distinctions?] [?] [would?] probably [?] directly the [??] to fine asked by defenses.

Mr. Snell then concluded:

"The evidence in this case will show to you that John Sheedy was a [??] fifty eight years of age; [???] defendant, was much younger [?] thirty-five or thereabouts, that she had been married twice before she [married?] Mr. Sheedy, and that she had [??] as his mistress for a year or more prior to their marriage. (Objected by Mr. Strode, but overruled [???] will further show to you that on this to the fact that Sheedy was a [?] that their social friends were few. I [??] will also show you that they had no children, and that there was [??] unite the two together except [??] own [conintibilty?]. The states will [??] their domestic relations prior to [?] last year, but some time in July of the year Mrs. Sheedy went to [?] N. Y. for medical treatment, and [?] met a young man some twenty-eight years of age, by the [???] Walstrom, and when Mrs. Sheedy returned home she brought with her a photography of this young [?]. That evidence will also [??] you that when she remarried to [??] Mr. Sheedy had not[???] and of this she complained very bitterly and she said at the time that is after the return from Buffalo, [??] was [mean?] to her, that he [??] that he was crazy and think he [?] her life that he [???] she was afraid of him, and [?] was

SAYS IT WAS MONDAY'S BLOW

THAT TOOK THE LIFE OF JOHN SHEEDY.

Dr. Hart Says That It Produced Fatal Compression at the Base of the Brain.

The Afternoon Spent in Contention as to the Admissibility of Monday's Confessions-- Were They Voluntarily Made?

May Ex-Mayor Graham Tell It? There was but a meagre audience strung across the front seats in the rear of the big court room yesterday morning when the accused were ushered into the enclosure surrounding the throne of the blind goddess, accompanied by their usual attendants. Mrs. Sheedy came in cheerily, supported by Mr. Biggerstaff, and it was noticed that she glanced hastily at the space outside the railing and looked surprised that there were not more curious people present to listen to the details and discussions of her great misfortune. When she had been shown to her seat facing the judge's stand and the witness chair, those who have watched her appearance and deportment from day to day could detect indisputable evidences of the mental sufferings that must oppress her during the few hours daily in which she is permitted to commune with her own troublesome thoughts. Her otherwise attractive face was absolutely colorless, and its whiteness was heightened by her modest garb of mourning. Her eyes moved listlessly from one object to another as if she found no special interest in the contemplation of any of them and if required no stretch of the imagination to recognize in their fixed moments an expression of fear for the consequences of the solemn proceedings of which she is the central figure. When the taking of testimony began she seemed to lose consciousness of her surroundings and kept her intense gaze bent upon the witness, as if weighing every utterance and calculating its effect. There were moments during the long discussion as to the admissability of Monday McFarland's confession when it appeared as it some of the revolting details of the darkey's alleged relations with her were bound to come out, and at these moments Mrs. Sheedy's eyes sought the floor. Especially was this noticeable when Court Reporter Wheeler was asked, in his examination, what the one question was which he could identify as having been asked Monday by Officer Malone while the darkey was making his confession. The witness was not permitted to reply, but Mrs. Sheedy's gaze was toward her gloved hands which were clasped in front of her. The answer, had it been permitted, would have revealed one of Monday's most revolting revelations.

Monday McFarland wore a troubled look all day and at times looked as if he was crying without shedding a tear, his features being so distorted as the counsel dwelt upon the competency of his thrice told tale of guilt. It was noticed that during the afternoon Monday's seat was changed from the east end of the long table occupied by counsel and he sat up toward the court, a few feet in front of Mrs. Sheedy and her row of relatives, and just behind Attorney Strode, who was next to the witness' chair.

There was an apparent break in the surprising harmony which has heretofore been deemed so remarkable among the attorneys for the two defendants. Apparently the testimony of Dr. Hart, while apparently greatly in the woman's favor, was anything but satisfactory to the darkey, as it fixed the responsibility for Sheedy's death upon that crushing blow in the dark with the cane. It then became evident that the interests of the defendants were not identical, and the hitherto harmonious counsel for the defense were noticed frequently conferring with the utmost apparent caution. Once, just before adjournment, they differed materially and the adjournment was [timely?] to permit them to reach an agreement.

The crowd of spectators increased during the morning. While each witness is being examined the doors are kept closed and at intervals there was a noisy rush upon the part of those upon the outside to get in and those upon the inside to get out.

The jury was not removed from the [?] while the discussion as to the competence of the confession for admission as testimony was going on, so that it has ere this been pretty thoroughly stamped upon their minds that there was a confession and the strong fight being made by the defense to keep it out cannot fail to impress them with its import.

Upon the opening of the court Mr. Sterns asked for a rule requiring that the witnesses all be separated; that none be allowed to be present while others were testifying. The court ordered all witnesses to remain outside of the court room until they had testified.

Dr. C. S. Bart was the first witness called, but ere a question was put to him the defense interposed objections to the third and fourth counts in the information, claiming that they did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense. The objections were overruled.

Dr. Hart on the Stand. Dr. Hart was sworn and examined by Mr. Hall. He said he was a graduate of a Columbus, O., medical school, and was from Marietta, O. He knew John Sheedy and attended him once about four years before his death; was a large man, and would weigh over 200; was at his house about [7:30?] on the evening he was assaulted; was at Eleventh and P streets when the first shot was fired and went down; five shots were fired; went in when he got there; Dr. Everett was there in attendance; there were a number of other people there; Sheedy was sitting in a chair just inside of the bed room; Mrs. Sheedy was there; witnesses spoke to Sheedy and asked if they had been trying to do him up again, and the reply was, "Yes. I don't know what I have done to merit such treatment." Officer Kinney brought in the cane; Sheedy was very nervous. The witness described in detail the wounds, over the left eye and the bruise across his wrist, which had been made by a blunt instrument. The wound was bleeding quite freely and his clothing was quite bloody. Sheedy sat up in the chair while the wounds were dressed, some fifteen or twenty minutes. Found no fractures of the skull, but the cheek bone was subsequently found to be broken loose. Sheedy went to bed after his wounds were dressed, assisted by witness and Dr. Everett; Dr. Everett suggested giving him morphine to quiet him, but witness objected, as he had found once before that morphine acted unpleasantly upon him; witness remained some fifteen minutes after Dr. Everett left; Sheedy appeared to be getting a little more uneasy; left about 8:30 and returned about 9:10, and Mrs. Sheedy had asked him to come back; found that Sheedy was very nervous; had been vomitting some, and some of those present were excited because there were traces of blood in the discharge; witness was convinced that the blood came from the nose; the bones of the nose were not broken; witness was not surprised at finding Sheedy very nervous and vomitting when he returned; had not thought this wound serious. When witness had returned Sheedy had complained of some pain in the head, but not severe. Witness had come back because Mrs. Sheedy had said that John wanted him to come back. Mrs. Sheedy had been left in charge. Sheedy made some remarks during the first visit to the effect that he didn't think the wound serious. Sheedy did not express himself as to whether he was struck or shot. On the second visit he went to the drug store and obtained thirty grains of sulfonal, a sleep producing remedy, with the use of which witness was familiar. Sulfonal has no after effects similar to morphine, except as a sleep producer; gave witness one powder, ten grains, a medium dose in the estimation of witness.

"How was the first dose of sulfonal administered?" "It was given to him in a little water." "Who gave it to him?" "Mrs. Sheedy I think." "Who put the sulfonal in the water?" "I couldn't say, I think she took the powder and gave it to him."

The first dose produced no effect whatever, and he threw it up in about twenty minutes. The second dose was given an hour later, or about 10:50. He had then vomited several times, from the shock to the nervous system. He complained of a pain in his head. He threw up the second dose in about fifteen minutes. From 10 to 11 o'clock he was in a more agitated condition than at the visit between 8 and 9 o'clock. No effect was noticed from the second dose, and he threw it up in about fifteen minutes.

"Where was you when you gave him the first powder?" "I don't remember whether I handed her the box or set the box on the dresser when I first came in." "What did you tell her it was, if you told her?" "I don't think I ever told her anything about what it was." "State whether or not you told her what you were giving him?" "I don't remember whether I did at that time or not, I think I did tell her what I was giving and what I expected from it but I don't know whether it was just at that time or not." "How was this sulfonal put up?" "In powders." "And in a little box?" "Yes sir, there were three powders in a little small paper box." "Three powders of ten grains each?" "Yes, sir." "You said you stood by the bed when she gave the first dose?" "Yes sir." "What time was the first dose of sulfonal given?" "About ten minutes to ten." "Where was you and Mrs. Sheedy when you gave her this first dose of sulfonal?" "I said that when I came in I don't recollect now whether I handed the package to her or whether I set the package on the dresser which was right by the side of the bed." "After you handed it to her what did you say to her about it?" "Told her to give him one of the powders." "Did you tell her how to give it?" "Yes, sir." "And do you know what she done, then: what she did?" "Got a glass of water and a spoon." "Do you know where she got the water?" "No, sir. I think if I remember rightly there was a glass of water standing on the dresser, I wouldn't say as to that." "Did you see her put the sulfonal in the water?" "I think I did." "That was prepared in your presence!" "Yes, sir." "That was the first dose?" "Yes, sir." "Did you leave the house between the giving of that dose and the second dose?" "No, sir." "What effect, if any, did you see from the first dose of medicine that you gave?" "None at all." "Now the second dose of sulfonal, how was that given?" "Given in the same way." "Did you hand that to Mrs. Sheedy out of the box or did she go and get it?" "No, sir, the second dose I remember she took out of the box by my instructions and gave it to him." "At that time you told her how to give him the second dose?" "Yes, sir." "Do you know how that was given?" "Yes, sir." "How?" "In water, the same as the first dose?" "That was given ten minutes to eleven?" "Yes, sir." "What effect, if any, did you notice from the second dose?" "None, whatever." "When was the next dose given?" "About one o'clock." "Where had you been between ten minutes to eleven and one o'clock? Had you been at the house all the time?" "No, sir; I had been away from there; I had been to the drug store and had been home." "How long were you probably away from there between those two intervals?" "Well, I would say twenty or twenty five minutes probably." "What did you go to the drug store for this second time?" "To get some hypodermic tablets of morphin." "What did you go home for?" "To get my hypodermic syringe; my office was at home at that time." "What is a hypodermic syringe?" "A syringe for introducing medicine under the skin to be taken up by absorption instead of giving it by the stomach." "Did you go to the drug store or home first?" "I went to the drug store first." "What medicine if any did you get there?" "I got two quarter grain powders of morphin." "Was that what you went there to get?" "No sir; I went there to get the hypodermic tablets that you get already prepared for use." "How did it happen you did not get those?" "He didn't have them, and I told him what I wanted, and I would like to have a quarter gram of morphine mixed with 150 parts of atrophine, and he told me he didn't have the tablets, he said he would send out and get them for me, and I told him to send out and I would get them when I came back, and he sent out and couldn't find them, so I told him to give me two quarter grain powders." "What did you do with them? "Put them in my hypodermic case." "Then where did you go?" "Back to the Sheedy residence." "What did you get the morphine for?" "In case I wanted to use them I would have it along." "Had you anticipated that you would have to use it?" "My idea was that if I couldn't keep the sulfonal down I would have to give him an injection under the skin so he couldn't throw it up." "How much of a dose of sulfonal could be administered to an adult in your opinion and not be considered dangerous?" "The largest dose I have ever given is forty grains; I think sixty grains have been given." "What would you call a maximum dose?" "Sixty grains." "What would you call a minimum dose?" "I would say from three to five grains to get any effect, that is, in an adult."

The third dose was given by Mrs. Sheedy in coffee at about 1 o'clock; she made the coffee in the kitchen on a gas stove. Witness stood just inside the bedroom, but went out into the kitchen and told her to put in no cream or sugar; she brought it in in a cup; witness asked her if it was not too hot; didn't remember whether or not he had tasted it; if he had he would have tasted morphine if it had been there; Mrs. Sheedy put the sulfonal in the cup; witness having handed it to her; young Dennis Sheedy, nephew of John Sheedy, was present.

After the administration of the third dose of sulfonal witness remained until morning; the light was turned down and witness, Mrs. Sheedy and Dennis went out; witness thought that he might go to sleep if quiet was maintained; witness and Dennis Sheedy were in the sitting room, the former so that he could see Sheedy by leaning forward; Mrs. Sheedy was in the sitting room part of the time and part of the time somewhere else, witness supposed in the parlor. Witness passed in and out of the bedroom every few minutes until 4 o'clock; went out of doors once or twice; about 4 a.m. Dennis Sheedy called the attention of witness to the fact that Sheedy was breathing heavily. Witness went in and found Sheedy wholly unconscious and breathing very heavily, not more than seven or eight times a minute, the normal number being seventeen or eighteen; his temperature was 100. Mrs. Sheedy followed them into the room; supposed that she had heard them from the parlor and had followed them in. Witness asked her for some stimulant. She procured some whisky and water. He was given some by witness, but couldn't swallow it. The muscles of the throat were paralyzed. The symptoms were deemed dangerous by the witness and Dr. Everett was summoned.

Witness said that his impression at the time was that Sheedy's death was due to compression at the base of the brain, caused by the shock from the blow, paralyzing the nerves of respiration and circulation. The symptoms of compression are almost identical with those of morphine poisoning except as to the contraction of the pupils of the eye. He explained that by compression he meant that there was a rush of blood to the brain and that it would be met by an unusual quantity of serum, more than would be absorbed readily in the ordinary course of nature, and that the combined influence of the two would be the compression of the nerves at the base of the brain and the upper portion of the spinal chord, producing paralysis of the parts affected by those nerves.

The witness further testified that at the consultation of physicians subsequently held this theory was generally adopted. Dr. Woodward suggested trephining at the point where the wound was inflicted, but the other five physicians opposed this course, as that was evidently not the point where the compression existed. Mrs. Sheedy was consulted and said she wished to abide by the decision of the majority.

Dr. Hart further testified that he was present as a spectator at the autopsy and would not call the examination made a critical one; no examination was made of the base of the brain, as far as he saw, nor the upper portion of the spinal chord, which he esteemed to be the seat of the trouble. No magnifying instrument was used in the examination, and the effects of compression might or might not be discovered otherwise, owing to circumstances. He found an unusual quantity of moisture about the brain. He believed that the effect of morphine poisoning would be to increase the moisture about the brain, as would also compression.

On cross-examination the witness said that he had administered no hypodermic injection of morphine, as he did not discover any necessity therefor, the third dose of sulfonal having apparently produced the desired quieting effect.

"What did you do with your hypodermic injector when you were there at this time?" "I put it in my pocket when I left the house and again when I left the drug store." "And did you keep it in your pocket all the time you was at Mr. Sheedy's house?" "Yes, sir." "Was it in your overcoat pocket?" "No sir, in my hip pocket. In my pants."

After the discovery of Sheedy's condition at 4 o'clock Mrs. Sheedy appeared to be anxious concerning it, and seemed to be doing everything she could to relieve him, such as moistening his lips and bathing his face.

He thought that if morphine had been administered at 1 o'clock it would have manifested itself before 4 o'clock, probably about two o'clock, in the heavy breathing and attendant symptoms. He usually looked for it to reveal its effects in thirty to forty minutes.

The witness testified as to the autopsy on his cross-examination, that some fatty degeneration of the heart was found, which would materially lessen Sheedy's chances of life in case of a shock; that the liver and kidneys were enlarged; that an unusually large gall stone was found in the gall bladder, but that nothing was noticed to be wrong with the lungs.

He thought that the probability of morphine administered into the stomach being discovered after death depended upon the size of the dose. If so much was administered that the organs of absorption would be paralyzed ere it was all absorbed the portion unabsorbed when death ensued would remain in the stomach a week or ten weeks more.

It was noon ere the counsel let go their hold upon the witness and then it was only to what their zeal by renewing their mental and physical energies at the dinner table.

The Afternoon Session. The seating capacity of the court room was pretty well utilized by the gentler sex when court re-opened and such as were not present when the fair prisoner came into the room were twisting their necks and bobbing their heads hither and thither thenceforth throughout the afternoon in an effort to secure a glimpse at Mrs. Sheedy and the other interesting personages connected with the case.

When the call to work was sounded the cross-examination of Dr. Hart by Mr. Strode was resumed. The witness said that John Sheedy's physical condition at the time of his death was such that he might have lived for many years or that violent excitement might terminate life at any time.

Colonel Philpott, on behalf on Monday, the cane wielder, then took the witness. The post-mortem examination was probably ordered by the coroner; he didn't think the examination was very complete; the medulla was not examined.

"Were you not assisting in that examination?" "No, sir; I was there simply as a spectator." "Were you not sufficiently interested to see that a thorough examination was had?" "I had personal reasons for not taking any part in the autopsy." "What were those reasons?" "Well, I had been covertly accused of responsibility in connection with Sheedy's death."

To Mr. Hall the witness said it could not be said that the fatty degeneration of the heart contributed in any way to the death of John Sheedy; if he died from heart disease alone he would have died in a different manner than what he did; did not attribute his condition to any affection of the heart, and it only suggested itself by the irregularity of the pulse. The theory held by the witness at the time would account for every feature of Sheedy's condition. He believed Mr. Sheedy died from the effects of the blow rather than from any defective condition of the organs of the body.

Dr. Hart was on the stand over three hours and was a remarkably cool, confident and frank witness, maintaining his theory and his composure at once under the searching questions propounded him.

Ex Mayor Graham. Hon. R. B. Graham was next called and before the mills were turned loose upon him the state objected to the presence of B. F. Pinneo in the room, as he was likely to be a witness for the defense they would not object if Malone were also permitted to remain. After some discussion Pinneo was allowed to remain, but Malone not.

It was explained by Mr. Hall that Mr. Graham was examined early to permit of his departure to serve on the United States jury in Omaha.

Mr. Graham, in response to questions by counsel, told of the circumstances surrounding Monday's confession. He had first met him in the marshal's private office on Sunday. The marshal had invited him to be there, as he wished him to be present to hear Monday's confession.

"Did Monday McFarland make confession at that time touching the means or manner of John Sheedy's death?" "Yes, he did." "Please relate what that confession contained."

There was a pause in the proceedings, and every one anticipated the objections that were soon made manifest by the defense.

Then it was that Hon. H. W. Weir of Mrs. Sheedy's council raised his voice for the first time during the eight days of the trial. He objected to the recitation of the confession until it had first been shown that it had been entirely voluntary and not made from fear or offers of immunity. The attorney was waxing eloquent upon the question and its vital importance in this case, when he was somewhat abruptly interrupted.

"I believe," said Judge Field, "that it is well understood by counsel that it is first necessary to lay a foundation for the admission of a confession by showing it to be competent. I don't believe counsel will differ on that point."

"But we do differ, your honor," said Mr. Hall, who contended that by the law a confession was to be considered competent until the party objecting to its admission should prove it to be incompetent. He thought no court should presume that a confession was involuntary until it was so proven.

Mr. Weir entered a motion asking that the confession be not admitted into the evidence for the reason that it was obtained from Monday McFarland by threats and promises of immunity.

MONDAY'S CONFESSION GOES

(Continued From Seventh Page.)

"I don't know whether I am or not."

"You hope so?"

"I expect he will pay me for what work I have done, but I don't know anything about it. He said he would and I guess he will."

"Does your pay in your contract with Mr. Malone in any way depend upon the result of this trial?"

"No sir."

"Who was present when you had this contract with Jim Malone?"

"Nobody but Jim Malone and myself."

"At what time of night was it?"

"About twenty-eight minutes past 9 o'clock. I think, when we sat down.

"And it was while you were sitting there that he gave you this statement?"

"Yes sir."

"I thought you said you were standing on the steps of the Capital hotel when he gave it to you."

"No sir: I said we were sitting down on the Capital hotel steps, on the north side of the house."

"Were you sitting on the steps or in chairs?"

"On the steps."

"On the 25th of March?"

"About that time, I can't tell within three, four or five days."

"What time of night was it?"

"It must have been about twenty-seven or twenty-eight minutes past 10 when we sat down there."

"You had a purpose in getting any admission out of Mr. Malone at that time if you could, hadn't you?"

"Not that time I hadn't."

"Was it given to you in confidence?"

"No sir."

"Just told in a general way.?"

"Yes sir."

"Now, hadn't you been trying to pump Malone in regard to this matter before?"

"Not at that time, only as a matter of mere curiosity to myself."

"But you had as a mere matter of curiosity>"

"Yes, sir. I had no object in that, though, until at the time of asking those questions."

"How many times had you asked him questions on this subject similar to these previous to this time?"

"I can't say. I have had several talks with Mr. Malone before and since that time."

"Haven't you asked him about that same question in a fact several times before that?"

"No sir, not on that subject."

"Since that have you not been trying to get additional information out of him?"

"On that particular subject?"

"On any subject connected with this Sheedy murder?"

"I have got considerable information out of him since that time, but not on that subject."

"Have you any concerning the Sheedy murder?"

"Yes, sir."

"And you would then go and impart it to the other attorney?"

Objected to; sustained.

"Did you ever tell Malone that you were in the employ of the other side when you were talking to him?"

"No, sir."

Redirect by Strode:

"Mr. Hall has had you up in his office a number of times trying to pump you, too, had he not."

"Once."

"He was talking about employing you once, was he not?"

"He said something about it."

Re-cross examination by Hall.

"When was that?"

"That you had me up there?"

"When you came up there?"

"I was sent for to crime up there."

"Who sent for you?"

"Somebody told me you wanted to see me."

"Who told you?"

"I would not undertake to say all the men that told me that Mr. Hall and Marquette wanted to see me."

"What kind of a looking man was that?"

"I would not undertake to say who told that you wanted to see me, but somebody told me and I came up there. I don't know but what it was Mr Malone; I don't know that it was: I would not say."

"When was it that man told you?"

"Can't tell you."

"What month was this?"

"My recollections is that it was between the 20th day of March and the 25th; along there somewhere, but I could and would not say within a week."

"Did you say I employed you at that time?"

"I say we had a little talk about it."

"Answer my question. Did I make any attempt to employ you in connection with this matter at that time?"

"Don't you remember a conversation you and I had?"

"Just answer my question?"

"Well, I don't know what you would call it; I call it that?"

"Did I offer to pay you anything?"

"You said Dennis Sheedy had lots of money and I might get a piece of it."

"Did I say how much of a piece you might get?"

"No, but you cautioned me not to let Marshal Melick and Malone know I had anything to do with it if I did go to work on the case."

"Did you go to work on it?"

"No sir. Yes sir, I did go and see one woman for you."

"You did go and see her?"

"Yes sir, I did."

"You went and saw her and saw what she said, and then went and told the other aide about it?"

"No sir, I didn't: what I done fo you I done in good faith."

"Did you come back and tell me what you had done?"

"No sir. The next day after I was in your office I was employed by Mr. Strode. I was not hired on both sides of the case. I am not any of those men that pull both ends of the rope."

"You didn't come back and tell me anything about what I had asked you to see about."

"No sir; you met me on the street and I told you---, you know what I told you."

"That was about a month or six weeks ago?"

"Yes sir."

"That was the first time I had seen you or said anything to you since you were up in my office?"

"I think it was the first time you asked me any questions about that lady and about anything else in connection with the matter?"

"Yes, I think so."

"Is it not a fact that in that conversation there you told me you was a neigh-bor of the party that I wanted to find out whether she knew anything about the case or not?"

Stenographer Wheeler was called back in the stand by the state and asked by Mr. Hall if he had stenographic notes of that confession with him in court. He replied that he had and was asked to read them.

The defense objected on the ground that a confession was admissible in evidence against an accused only when freely and voluntarily made; it must relate to the prisoner and his connection with the crime charged; it is inadmissible if obtained through threats of promises of immunity. Mr. Stearns spoke at considerable length, citing many authorities in support of our position. He also contended and cited authorities to show that when a confession has once been obtained through hope or fear, the subsequent confession inferred to come from the same motive, although there may be no immediate evidence of coercion as to the latter confession, the burden of proof being upon the state to show that it was entirely free and voluntary, made after he had been warned of the consequences. He contended that Monday had been led to believe that it would be better for him to make this confession, and that a mob was intent upon lynching him, and that the prisoner was excited by fear or in-toxication.

Judge Weir of counsel for defense then spoke in the same vein and dwelt upon the susceptibility of the ignorant, Illiter-ate Monday McFarland to such influences, and contending that his mind was not free and the confession not voluntary. He dwelt upon the testimony of Carder to the effect that Monday was in-cited to violent fears by the belief that a mob was being formed, and contended that on that momentous Sunday morning when Monday told his story every inducement was offered him, such as assuring him that to save his own life, and to better his condition, he should tell all. Judge Weir talked for twenty minutes, and Mr. Woodward handed a list of authorities.

Mr. Hall , for the state, said that every confession stands upon its own merits, being surrounded by different circum-stances and no rules of law would apply to any considerable number of confessions. He said the council had been very general in their remarks and had not told just what promises and threats had m=been made. In order to exclude a confession it must appear that a confession is a direct result of promises or threats. If the mind of a criminal must be cool, calm and unimpassioned when an admissible confession is made, there would never be a criminal's confession ad-mitted in testimony. There was nothing to show that the confession at issue was the result of promises or threats. He contended that nothing that could be construed to be a promise or a threat had been proven, and if the propositions to which objections were advances were ever made, no confession appears to have followed. The speaker rubbed the credibility of Mr. Carder pretty severely and said that if Malone had talked of a mob that night, which was denied, and had frightened Monday, then would have been the time for him to make his confession if he had made it through fear and not wait until the next day at noon. He further called attention to the fact that Mayor Graham had been called to hear the confession that Monday had evidently already made up his mind to tell the truth. The test of a promise or threat sufficient to render a confession inadmissible is whether or not it is of such nature as would induce him to tell an untruth. There must be a positive promise of immunity by a person having authority in order to exclude a confession. Mr. Hall quoted extensively from authorities in support of his propositions and spoke for fully an hour.

Near the close of his address Mr. Hall in contending for the admission of the confession said that were it admitted when it should not be, the defendants would have their remedy in a higher court.

Mr. Strode interrupted the speaker with a request that that remark be reduced to writing and that the court instruct the counsel that he had done wrong and very wrong in making the statement to the jury.

The court said he saw no ground in the statement that would justify a rebuke, but that it would be as well if it had been unsaid.

Mr. Strode then dictated to the reporter what Mr. Hall said, but in other words.

Mr. hall denied that he had made the statement which Mr. Strode quoted him as having made, and he protested against the reporter putting in the records anything which he had not said.

"Well, repeat it," said Mr. Strode.

"Inasmuch as counsel for the defense objected so strenuously to the statement when first made; I don't think i would be justified in repeating it."

"Do you remember the statement?" asked Mr. Strode of Reporter Wheeler.

The latter hadn't retained it.

"I ask the court whether or not what i have quoted was not the substance of what Mr. Hall said?"

"The court cannot advise you," replied Judge Field.

The storm blew over without further damage.

Judge Field admonished the attorneys to out short their addresses. He didn't desire to interfere with the desire of counsel to make good speeches but he couldn't permit such extended discussion of every question presenting itself.

Mr. Lambertson said that under that understanding he would say nothing, as Mr. Hall had covered the ground.

Mr. Woodward of McFarland's counsel then took a whack at the inadmissibility of his clients' confession and devoted over an hour to an impassioned discussion of the promises to Monday embodied in the evidence, held out to induce him to tell his story. He quoted in addition to what is heretofore given the statement made by Garder that Malone had said to Monday that Saturday night, "I'll get you before morning." He went over all the evidence to show what had been said calculated to frighten Monday or lead him to hope for clemency, and cited equally numerous authorities to show that Monday's story was therefore not competent evidence. Every proposition of law advanced by Mr. Hall was met by numberless authorities. But the argument was without avail, for at its close Judge Field ruled against him.

The Confession is Admitted.

In handing down his decision the cour remarked, amid the most impressive lence:

"There is no doubt that this is the critical point and the important part of this case. If I had any doubt in my mind as to the course I should pursue I should not render an option at this time, but as it has been evident that this point of the case would come up on the trial, I have investigated the law pretty thoroughly and my view of the ease is entirely settled. It being so, I see no reason for hesitating in the ruling. The law as I understand it in this state on a confession is about as has been stated by counsel, and especially by Judge Wier. I think he stated the facts very fairly, that the case it to be presented to the court to determine whether or not the confession should be submitted to the jury. If the court is of the opinion that the surroundings in the case and of the confession are such as to be entirely improper, then the count should exclude the confession and not submit it to the jury, If the court is of the opinion that the confession and all the circumstances attending and surrounding the confession should be submitted to the jury, it becomes a matter for them to pass upon as to whether or not the confession was made voluntarily and without inducements, as much as any of the other evidence. I am clearly of the opinion that his is admissible to go to the jury. Therefore I overrule the objection."

Exception by both defendants.

Mr. Strode: "Upon the part of the defendant. Mary Sheedy, we object to the admission of this alleged confession of Monday McFarland for the further reason that it was not made in her presence, but was made, if made at all, without her knowledge and assent, and cannot be in any way blinding upon her and cannot be received and put in evidence against her." Overruled. Exception.

Judge Field, in reply, said: "I see no way when two persons are charged and tried together, of using evidence against one and excluding it as against the other. That, however, will be covered by instructions. I will note the objection to the introduction of the confession and cover the question of its relevancy by an instruction."

These rulings, evidently, were very disheartening to the attorneys for the defense, both branches, as was evinced by the tones of their further utterances. As it was then late Judge Field adjourned court until this morning when the confession will probably be read by Stenographer Wheeler.

WEEKLY STATE JOURNAL FOR TEN CENTS.

We will furnish the Cosmopolitan magazine (price $2.40) and the WEEKLY STATE JOURNAL (price $1.00) both for one year for $2.50, which is but 10 cents more than the regular price of the Cosmopolitan. You can have the WEEKLY JOURNAL mailed to any address you desire. You have some friend to whom you could send it.

Address State Journal, Lincoln, Neb.

HUSKERS HARDLY IN IT

___________ OMAHA TAKES THE POSTPONED GAME.

_______________ Base Hits and Errors Were both Equal, But Fortune Favored Shannon's Shorn Lambs. ______________ Minneapolis obliged to Content Herself With Three Victories From the Mountaineers.

__________________

No Games Scheduled at Milwalkee and St. Paul- Resultsin the National Leaque and American Assocition- Other Sport.

______________ Omaha 6, Sioux City [8?]

Sioux City, IA., May 13,- Yesterday the Omaha buried the Sioux. To-day they danced a hornpipe on their graves. up till the sixth inning the chances for a resurrection were good, but two rank throws from third base let in three runs which patted the mould over them. Traffley made his first appearance with the Omahas and played a good game behind the bat. The score: