50

JUROR NOTION NOT GUILTY

OF PERJURY IN THE GREATEST SHEEDY CASE

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

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

The Last Act is the Great Farce.

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

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

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

"I have not."

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

"No sir, I have not."

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

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

"You would give him that anyway?"

"Yes, sir."

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

"I think I would."

"Would circumstantial evidence convince you?"

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

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

"No sir, I have not."

Cross-examined by Mr. Stearns:

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

"No, I have no."

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

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

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

"No."

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

"I don't."

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

"Not the least."

"Could you presume them innocent until proven guilty?"

"I should, certainly."

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

"It does not."

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

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

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

"Newspaper reports."

"Not any evidence?"

"No."

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

"No."

"Where was you; away from home?"

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

"Did they take any paper there?"

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

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

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

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

"No, never saw it to my knowledge."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In opening his argument Greene said he did not behave that any court or any spectator who listened to the testimony in this case could not help but be driven to the irresistible conclusion that there had been no offense shown or pretended to be shown by the prosecution. He contended that the information was incomplete, preposterous and silly; that no court would sustain a conviction upon such an information. That the words upon which perjury was predicated were not alleged to be either true or false; that the complaint failed utterly to allege that the perjury was in a matter material to the issue.