3

MRS. SHEEDY WILL BE BAILED

THAT APPEARS TO BE THE PROBABILITY.

Judge Field Intimates The He Deems it Hardly the Proper Thing to Keep Her Imprisoned.

The Defense Alleges That the Chemist Will Not Make Known the Result of His Research Until Called as a Witness, and Give a Reason.

Argument of the Motion.
The motion on behalf of Mrs. Mary Sherdy filed on Friday in the district court, asking that she be admitted to bail and that the county attorney be re-required to file his information against her, setting forth the crime with which she is charged, or his reasons in writing for not doing so as required by law, came up for argument before Judge Field yesterday morning. Messrs. Stearns & Strode appeared in behalf of the prisoner, who was not brought into court. Mr. Strode read the motion as printed in the issue of yesterday. He called attention to the fact that the transcript of the preliminary proceedings in Judge Heuston's court had been filed three days before the present term began; that the accused has since been confined in the county jail; that she knows not what crime she is to be charged with and can therefore take no steps to prepare for her defense; that the law requires the county attorney to file either his information or his written reasons for not doing so and that the county attorney has failed to do either. Mr. Strode said he had taken this step in preference to the institution of habeas corpus proceedings for reasons of economy; that the reporter has not yet completed a transcript of the testimony adduced at the examination: that it would cost the defense about $150 to secure such a transcript; that Mrs. Sheedy is shut up in jail without any money at her disposal and that her property is tied up by the proceedings against her. He said that he was informed and believed that the result of the chemical analysis will not be divulged by the analyzing chemist until he is called as a witness; that the proof against the accused was not strong or the presumption of her guilt great and that the examining magistrate had said when he held her that were it not for the possibily of finding poison in the stomach of the deceased he would not hold the prisoner, or words to that effect. Mr. Strode quoted section 9 of the state constitution, wherein it is said that "all person shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for treason and murder, where proof is evident or the presumption great," and submitted a brief showing a great number of cases in many states where people had been admitted to bail. He contended for a rule often held, that when there is a well founded or reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner. it cannot be said that the proof is evident or the presumption great of his guilt, and it is a well approved doctrine that where upon evidence there is a probability of the prisoner's innocence there must be a reasonable doubt of his guilt. Mr. Strode contended that in the case at bar the doubt of the defendant's guilt is so strong and well defined that even the county attorney does not know the crime with which he proposes to charge her.

County Attorney Snell then explained to the court that the law simply requires that he shall file his information within the term, and that only three weeks of the term has passed away. He did not wish to incur any unnecessary delay and was simply awaiting the result of the chemical analysis that his information might conform thereto. He said that the defense must already know the nature of the crime to be charged in the court below.

Mr. Strode interrupted with the assertion that the result of the analysis would probably not be made known before the analyzing chemist is called upon the witness stand, as the coroner's contract with the chemist provides that he shall get $100 for the analysis and $50 per day for the time spent in giving his testimony. The inference to be drawn from Mr. Strode's remarks on this point was to the effect that if no poison was found the chhemist would probably not so report, in advance, as he would lose the $50 per day job. He said that Coroner Holyoke had received a letter from Professor Vaughn, the chemist, in which the latter had inquired, "Who is this N. Z. Snell? He writes me to report to him, and to him only, the result of the analysis." Mr. Strode said further that Mr. Snell had said that he would probably not make the result known to the defense until he filed his information. This, he thought, was not fair to the defendant.

Mr. Snell retorted that he did not care to go into these outside matters and that there was nothing in his letter of which he need be ashamed.

"I do not think it exactly right." remarked Judge Field, "that the prisoner should be held in this manner. What have you to urge against her being admitted to bail?"

"I shall certainly oppose that," remarked Mr. Snell. At this point Mr. Strode submitted to the [ceurr?] his brief of authorities and Mr. Snell asked time to prepare a brief in reply, which was granted. No definite time was specified and the case will probably be up again early in the week.

MRS. SHEEDY WILL BE BAILED

THAT APPEARS TO BE THE PROBABILITY.

Judge Field Intimates The He Deems it Hardly the Proper Thing to Keep Her Imprisoned.

The Defense Alleges That the Chemist Will Not Make Known the Result of His Research Until Called as a Witness, and Give a Reason.

Argument of the Motion.
The motion on behalf of Mrs. Mary Sherdy filed on Friday in the district court, asking that she be admitted to bail and that the county attorney be re-required to file his information against her, setting forth the crime with which she is charged, or his reasons in writing for not doing so as required by law, came up for argument before Judge Field yesterday morning. Messrs. Stearns & Strode appeared in behalf of the prisoner, who was not brought into court. Mr. Strode read the motion as printed in the issue of yesterday. He called attention to the fact that the transcript of the preliminary proceedings in Judge Heuston's court had been filed three days before the present term began; that the accused has since been confined in the county jail; that she knows not what crime she is to be charged with and can therefore take no steps to prepare for her defense; that the law requires the county attorney to file either his information or his written reasons for not doing so and that the county attorney has failed to do either. Mr. Strode said he had taken this step in preference to the institution of habeas corpus proceedings for reasons of economy; that the reporter has not yet completed a transcript of the testimony adduced at the examination: that it would cost the defense about $150 to secure such a transcript; that Mrs. Sheedy is shut up in jail without any money at her disposal and that her property is tied up by the proceedings against her. He said that he was informed and believed that the result of the chemical analysis will not be divulged by the analyzing chemist until he is called as a witness; that the proof against the accused was not strong or the presumption of her guilt great and that the examining magistrate had said when he held her that were it not for the possibily of finding poison in the stomach of the deceased he would not hold the prisoner, or words to that effect. Mr. Strode quoted section 9 of the state constitution, wherein it is said that "all person shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for treason and murder, where proof is evident or the presumption great," and submitted a brief showing a great number of cases in many states where people had been admitted to bail. He contended for a rule often held, that when there is a well founded or reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner. it cannot be said that the proof is evident or the presumption great of his guilt, and it is a well approved doctrine that where upon evidence there is a probability of the prisoner's innocence there must be a reasonable doubt of his guilt. Mr. Strode contended that in the case at bar the doubt of the defendant's guilt is so strong and well defined that even the county attorney does not know the crime with which he proposes to charge her.

County Attorney Snell then explained to the court that the law simply requires that he shall file his information within the term, and that only three weeks of the term has passed away. He did not wish to incur any unnecessary delay and was simply awaiting the result of the chemical analysis that his information might conform thereto. He said that the defense must already know the nature of the crime to be charged in the court below.

Mr. Strode interrupted with the assertion that the result of the analysis would probably not be made known before the analyzing chemist is called upon the witness stand, as the coroner's contract with the chemist provides that he shall get $100 for the analysis and $50 per day fot the time spent in giving his testimony. The inference to be drawn from Mr. Strode's remarks on this point was to the effect that if no poison was found the chhemist would probably not so report, in advance, as he would lose the $50 per day job. He said that Coroner Holyoke had received a letter from Professor Vaughn, the chemist, in which the latter had inquired, "Who is this N. Z. Snell? He writes me to report to him, and to him only, the result of the analysis." Mr. Strode said further that Mr. Snell had said that he would probably not make the result known to the defense until he filed his information. This, he thought, was not fair to the defendant.

Mr. Snell retorted that he did not care to go into these outside matters and that there was nothing in his letter of which he need be ashamed.

"I do not think it exactly right." remarked Judge Field, "that the prisoner should be held in this manner. What have you to urge against her being admitted to bail?"

"I shall certainly oppose that," remarked Mr. Snell. At this point Mr. Strode submitted to the [ceurr?] his brief of authorities and Mr. Snell asked time to prepare a brief in reply, which was granted. No definite time was specified and the case will probably be up again early in the week.