242

WEEKLY NEBRASKA STATE JOURNAL FRIDAY MAY 29 1891

protection of the accused, so that the defense will know who is to testify for the state. This enables the defense to discover what the testimony is likely to be and to take such steps as are available to disprove it. Mrs. Skinner's knowledge was not revealed to the state until it was too late to endorse her name on the information. A number of other important witnesses have been recently discovered, too late for service, which would probably not have been the case had the papers been permitted to secure and print the facts revealed at the coroner's inquest. The same rule of law does not apply to the witnesses for the defense.

Made me Dicker With Goldwater.I

An exasperating delay of fully a half hour ensued at this point because the remaining witnesses summoned in rebuttal were not present. At length Hon. R. B. Graham was brought in and asked whether or not himself, Malone or Melick, as far as he knew, had ever made any arrangements with Goldwater whereby he was to be paid for identifying the cane.

The defense objected to the testimony as improper and calculated to impeach Mr. Goldwater as against Mr. Burr., the latter having testified that Goldwater had so told him. Mr. Strode said that those who knew the standing of the two men in this community, would hardly credit the testimony of Hymen Goldwater against that of Mr. Burr. "Mr. Burr has never been arrested for petit larceney." said Mr. Strode.

"No," rejoined Mr. Hall, "but he has been disbarred for disreputable practice as an attorney."

Judge Field finally decided to permit the testimony to go in, and Mr. Graham denied ever having conversed with Goldwater concerning the matter, and had never been present at any such conversation in relation so the reward or any part thereof.

S. M. Melick was called and also denied every having promised Hymen Goldwater any reward or any part of a reward for the identification of the cane, and had never been present at any conversation wherein any such promise was made.

He related how young Goldwater had once come to the police station and asked to see Malone. Witness had inquired what he wanted Malone to pay him $200 which the latter had promised him out of the reward. Witness asked Malone subsequently if he had promised the boy any reward and he had replied that he had not.

Young Curry's Unwitting Mistake.

After some further delay Bob Malone was brought in. He testified that he was driver of the patrol wagon at the times of the Sheedy assault: the patrol wagon did not go over to the Sheedy house.

W. W. Carder was called and said he was not sure whether the patrol wagon went over that night or not; the record kept by him at that time would show it if it did.

He was shown the police record; said he made it himself, or thought he did; didn't know whether he was positive that it was his writing or that of Walter Melick. The record did not show that the wagon had gone out, and the witness said that he thought it had not gone out, and the witness said that he thought it had not gone to the Sheedy place that night.

This was to rebut the testimony of young Curry, one of the boys who claimed to have seen the two men running away and who said that the patrol wagon drove up soon after he got there.

The state had been waiting and calling for Joe Scroggins, but as he was not brought in Mr. Hall finally said:

"Your honor, the officers of the court do not appear to be able to find the witness. We do not care to inflict any further delay, and have therefore concluded to announce that the state rests."

Judge Field said that a request had been made that the opening argument be postponed until Monday and if there were no objections it would be done. Non were heard.

"I would like to have a definite understanding, however, among attorneys that this case is now closed, and positively no further testimony can be introduced. Mr. Bailiff, remove the jury."

Mr. Snell Opens for the State.

At 9:25 Mr. Snell took up the opening argument for the state. He began by describing the premises accurately and in detail, and how at 7:30 on that Sunday night John Sheedy stepped out of his door and was fully assaulted and murdered.

"When darkness folded her sable mantle and wrapped its pall over this city on the evening of January 11 last, there had been planned and was on the even of execution a murderous conspiracy, which for devilish malevolence and hideous cunning, and depravity stands but bold and alone in the criminal annals of Lancaster county. I refer to the assault made that evening upon John Sheedy, and which culminated in his death the following day. The preliminaries for the commission of this murder had been arranged with careful reference to detail, and the parties concerned would, perhaps, have escaped punishment had not, the principal actor in the assault, strung to remorse by a guilty conscience, revealed the infamous conspiracy by a confession, which revealed the details in all their hideous deformity, and pilloried the accomplice before the gaze of a startled community."

He detailed the arrest and preliminary proceedings after suspicion had settled upon the defendants and showed how Monday McFarland had been a barber employed occasionally at the Sheedy home in dressing Mrs. Sheedy's hair, and that while so employed, an hour or more at a time, in such instances Mrs. Sheedy had ample opportunity to sound him and ascertain in what way she might avail herself of his services in securing her freedom.

"No man ever committed the awful crime of murder without a motive. What, then, was the motive that startled the nerves and seared the conscience of Monday McFarland? What prompted him to the commission of the most awful crime known to our statutes? There was a motive; what was it? It was Mary Sheedy, the wife of the man against whose life she was conspiring, and she urged him on not alone by the promise of great financial reward, but, as he says in his confession, by the sacrifice of her chastity to him. Still he could not nerve himself to attempt the life of a man who had been his benefactor, and to whom he had every reason to consider he owed a debt of gratitude he could never repay."

He dwelt at length upon the efforts of the defense to show that the most amicable relations existed between Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy by such witnesses as E. H. Andrus, C. O. Whedon and W. J. Marshall. witnesses who would not be at all likely to ever see John Sheedy pounding his wife or hear Mrs. Sheedy [acoiding?] her husband like a fish woman. The defense had purposely called witnesses who knew nothing of the facts and had studiously failed to ask any of their own witnesses, who were qualified to know, whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy lived happily, not even Mrs. Dean, the sister of the defendant, who lived in the family.

He then took up the evidence of the witnesses for the state--that of Mrs. Swift and Mrs. Hood, who unwillingly testified that their relations were anything but amicable, and that of Johnnie Klausner, who said that he had found Mrs. Sheedy once in tears and she had said she was going to get a divorce.

The record in the case failed to disclose that nay domestic infelicity had ever agitated the Sheedy family until after she had returned from Buffalo, bringing with her the picture of young Walstrom, and said that while the defense will endeavor to make it appear that Mrs. Sheedy's friendship fro Walstrom was a harmless one, still it is probable that each member of the jury will reflect that when a married woman evinces such an interest in a young man and exhibits his picture so proudly to her friends, he will arrive at the conclusion that he would prefer it were somebody's else wife than his own

The speaker referred to the relations existing between Walstrom and Mrs. Sheedy; how he came to the city soon after her return, hunted up Johnnie Klausner and introduced himself as the young man of whom Mrs. Sheedy had already spoken to Klausner; how they went together to a room in the Heater block, Walstrom paying two-thirds of the room rent, how soon afterwards Johnnie Klausner began carrying sealed notes, which were not addressed, between Mrs. Sheedy and Walstrom. If those notes were harmless notes why in the name of Mrs. Sheedy's innocence had not the defense brought at least one of Walstrom's notes, which were undoubtedly in their possession, into court to show how innocent they were. And it is a little remarkable that Mrs. Sheedy never sent any lunches to Klausner's room until Walstrom came to room with him, as Klausner testifies himself.

He took up Monday's confession and fave its chief points briefly, showed how every after fact confirmed the story, and now utterly impossible it would be for Monday or any other man to invent such a story.

Mr. Snell picked Monday's confession to pieces and told in detail how every known circumstance brought out in the testimony corroborated the entire truth and wonderful accuracy of that remarkable story of the criminal conspiracy.

Mr. Snell's closing point was the best he had made. It was to the effect that it would have been simply impossible for anyone to have made the assault on John Sheedy as it was committed unless he had had a confederate inside of the house to signal him when Mr. Sheedy was coming out, just Monday McFarland claimed Mrs. Sheedy signalled to him by raising the window blind. The plat will show that the north end of the house is but about twelve feet from the sidewalk. The testimony shows that Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy were sitting in the north room near the north windows, the curtains of which were up. The east window, opening out of the next room to the south, could afford no view of them. It would have been impossible for an intending assassin to watch their movements through the north windows, and he would have certainly been detected by the people constantly passing along that much travelled street. It was too light upon the porch for an assassin to have escaped observation had he chosen to crouch there while waiting for his victim to come out. any loiterer about the porch or from windows would certainly have attracted attention. But back about thirty feet or more from the fence, directly on the east side of the house, was an arbor, behind which the assassin must have secreted himself, just as Monday McFarland says in his confession that he did secrete himself. From this point it would be impossible to have discerned when Mr. Sheedy was coming out, bad not someone signalled his coming, just as Monday McFarland says in his confession she did, when he stepped upon the porch and struck that blow with the cane.

"And what does Mrs. Sheedy say in her testimony before the coroner? The east window that opens upon that porch opens out of the sitting room, wich is just south of the parlor. The door leading to the porch opens out of the parlor. To get to the kitchen from the parlor one passes through the sitting room. Mrs. Sheedy says that she helped John on with his overcoat and hat, and then started for the kitchen. Then it was that she raised that window curtain in the sitting room to let Monday McFarland know that her husband was coming."

Judge [Welr's?] Argument for Mrs. Sheeddy.

He was followed by Judge Weir of Mrs. Sheedy's counsel, who took up the forty minutes prior to noon, in introductory remarks, congratulating the jury upon the progress of the case toward completion and explaining how he came to be in the case--as a friend and neighbor of Mrs. Sheedy's uncle. Mr. Biggerstaff. He dwelt in an impressive manner upon the importance of the case, not only to the defense, but to the state. He said that without any semblance of flattery he could say that the chief counsel for the defense had done their duty faithfully, honestly and ably, and if he had been able to suggest to them one valuable thought or idea that would assist them in their work, he had done his duty. He complimented the jury upon the attention they had given the evidence. He then explained the duties of counsel for the state to be to honestly, fairly and impartially endeavor to see that crime meets its just punishment. He had no criticisms to make in relation to the counsel for the state. They had done their work faithfully, zealously and ably. When an attorney for the state exhibits undue zeal to secure conviction of a party accused he becomes a persecutor instead of a prosecutor.

The speaker then took up the two chief propositions of law involved in the case and detailed in the most minute manner their bearing upon their verdict. The first principle, one upon which counsel would all agree, was that the law presumes the defendants innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; not a doubt that might be conjured up, but a doubt that is reasonable. He quoted many principles and maxims of the law designed to serve as a shield for the accused and thoroughly fixed in the minds of the jurors the duty of considering the accused innocent until convinced of their guilt.

After discussing the law Judge Weir attacked the the theory advanced by the state as to the motve of the crime. He said the state endeavored to ;show that John Sheedy and his wife lived in great discord, and that the latter was therefore anxious to get rid of her husband; that to that end the state had shown that on one occasion she had said she had wanted to get a divorce. This was the strongest evidence shown by the prosecution on that point: that up to July last she was afflicted with a disease peculiar to women; that she was solicited to go east and put herself under the treatment of skilled physicians; that she did go, accompanied by her husband, who left her there: that while there she met and fell in love with a young man named Walstrom, and that she procured him to come to Lincoln. And the theory of the state was that it was because of her love for Walstrom that she was led to imbrue her hands in the blood of her kind and affectionate husband.

He said that the state had failed to bring any evidence. except a few isolated facts, in support of their theory , and all in the nature of circumstantial evidence. He explained at length the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, and urged the necessity of the establishment of a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence in order to convict, from which there must be missing not a single link.

He then returned to the fact that John Sheedy was a gambler and that the wife did not approve of the business. It also appeared that he was a king among gamblers and very naturally excited jealousy among others in the same business. Hence, very naturally and very reasonably, he had enemies among that class.

When the crime was committed and he was laid upon his deathbed by a blow administered at this own door, the question arose as to what was the source of that crime. Did it emanate from the jealousy of his companions in business, or did it emanate from the wishes of his wife. Which is the more reasonable theory? Could it not have been committed by same other than Monday McFarland? The speaker quoted the threatening letter received by Sheedy only four days prior to the assault, telling him that unless he let up on the other gamblers he would be killed.

He said that it was not until some days after the tragedy that some circumstance fastened suspicion upon Monday McFarland and at once the policemen and detectives saw a chance offered by this tragedy to make money. He dwelt at length in criticism of the methods adopted by the officers in extorting the alleged confession from Monday, and said that although God, in His inscrutable wisdom, had made him black, he was a human being, endowed with a human soul, and was entitled to the protection of the law, which was in this instance denied him. He urged at length the incompetency of that alleged confession because it was obtained by threats, violence and promise of immunity. If the jury was of the opinion, from the evidence, that that confession was obtained by threats or promises, then, the court would instruct them, they must exclude it from their consideration.

To prove that it was so obtained he referred to the fact that Marshal Melick at the very time of making the arrest, had made the first promise of immunity. He said: "If you make these disclosures it will be easier for you." He referred rather less courteously to James Malone, who, he said, seemed to be the centre of the prosecution and was called upon the testimony whenever testimony was needed, and related the testimony of W. W. Carder to the effect that Malone had endeavored to make Monday believe that a mob was being organized outside of the jail to hang him, and that as soon as it reached a hundred it would come for him. [Actusted?] by the fear thus engendered Monday had made the alleged confession. That was early Sunday morning. Later in the day this poor creature, feeling that he was deserted and that his life was in danger, was brought before the mayor and the marshal ad Dennis Sheedy, with a shorthand reporter behind the curtain, and there, still laboring under his violent sense of fear, had related the story introduced in the testimony.

The speaker also referred to the repetition of the confession before the coroner's jury as having been similarly obtained by threats and promises, all having been practically a part of the same transaction. He contended that there was testimony to show that Monday was sworn when he recited the confession, and said that if the jury so found from the preponderance of testimony, that confession should not be considered by them.

"We contend," said Judge Weir, " that the confessions proposed to be considered here were confessions extorted from this poor, miserable,ignorant black man by a violation of law, and if they were extorted from him by a violation of the law provided for his protection, they are powerless against him as evidence."

He also contended that these confessions, whether true or false, could not be considered as evidence of the guilt of Mrs. Sheedy. But the story itself need only be considered to convince one that it is absolutely false. He contended that no man could believe that the story as told by Monday McFarland about "this good woman" was true. It was contrary to human nature.

"It is not true; it's against human nature: it is preposterous, and should be spurned with contempt from the consideration of every upright, honest, unprejudiced and impartial man.

The theory of the defense is that Mrs. Sheedy, in connection with the negro, murdered her husband; that while he was lying upon his bed languishing and dying from the effects of that blow, she was so lost to the sentiments of humanity that she mixed the fatal does in coffee. and unknown to the physician in charge, administered it to her husband."

He dwelt upon the improbability of such a theory because of its repugnance to the idea of wifely affection. Then followed the autopsy and the analysis of the contents of the stomach. in which no poison was found. Then they brought a chemist from Chicago. took up the body again, submitted other portions of the body to an analysis in their real to fasten the crime upon the wife. yet all the appliances of science had failed to reveal the presence of morphine poisoning or any other poisoning. He thought that at this point the prosecution would have paused to reflect upon the persecution of this woman and that Dennis Sheedy, who appeared to be furnishing the means therefor, would have foregone further persecution, and in a burst of eloquence denounced the course of Dennis Sheedy as a malignant effort to persecute and destroy the beloved and innocent wife of his dead brother. He denounced the inference that there was any criminality in the acquaintance with Walstrom, and contended that the state had wonderfully magnified her little attentions to him into a crime in order to show that she had motive to murder her husband and had committed the unnatural crime of adultery with the negro to secure that end. It was a preposterous theory, yet it was the theory upon which the state would ask the jury to convict this good woman of the awful crime of murder, a crime punishable by death.

WEEKLY NEBRASKA STATE JOURNAL FRIDAY MAY 29 1891

protection of the accused, so that the defense will know who is to testify for the state. This enables the defense to discover what the testimony is likely to be and to take such steps as are available to disprove it. Mrs. Skinner's knowledge was not revealed to the state until it was too late to endorse her name on the information. A number of other important witnesses have been recently discovered, too late for service, which would probably not have been the case had the papers been permitted to secure and print the facts revealed at the coroner's inquest. The same rule of law does not apply to the witnesses for the defense.

Made me Dicker With Goldwater.I

An exasperating delay of fully a half hour ensued at this point because the remaining witnesses summoned in rebuttal were not present. At length Hon. R. B. Graham was brought in and asked whether or not himself, Malone or Melick, as far as he knew, had ever made any arrangements with Goldwater whereby he was to be paid for identifying the cane.

The defense objected to the testimony as improper and calculated to impeach Mr. Goldwater as against Mr. Burr., the latter having testified that Goldwater had so told him. Mr. Strode said that those who knew the standing of the two men in this community, would hardly credit the testimony of Hymen Goldwater against that of Mr. Burr. "Mr. Burr has never been arrested for petit larceney." said Mr. Strode.

"No," rejoined Mr. Hall, "but he has been disbarred for disreputable practice as an attorney."

Judge Field finally decided to permit the testimony to go in, and Mr. Graham denied ever having conversed with Goldwater concerning the matter, and had never been present at any such conversation in relation so the reward or any part thereof.

S. M. Melick was called and also denied every having promised Hymen Goldwater any reward or any part of a reward for the identification of the cane, and had never been present at any conversation wherein any such promise was made.

He related how young Goldwater had once come to the police station and asked to see Malone. Witness had inquired what he wanted Malone to pay him $200 which the latter had promised him out of the reward. Witness asked Malone subsequently if he had promised the boy any reward and he had replied that he had not.

Young Curry's Unwitting Mistake.

After some further delay Bob Malone was brought in. He testified that he was driver of the patrol wagon at the times of the Sheedy assault: the patrol wagon did not go over to the Sheedy house.

W. W. Carder was called and said he was not sure whether the patrol wagon went over that night or not; the record kept by him at that time would show it if it did.

He was shown the police record; said he made it himself, or thought he did; didn't know whether he was positive that it was his writing or that of Walter Melick. The record did not show that the wagon had gone out, and the witness said that he thought it had not gone out, and the witness said that he thought it had not gone to the Sheedy place that night.

This was to rebut the testimony of young Curry, one of the boys who claimed to have seen the two men running away and who said that the patrol wagon drove up soon after he got there.

The state had been waiting and calling for Joe Scroggins, but as he was not brought in Mr. Hall finally said:

"Your honor, the officers of the court do not appear to be able to find the witness. We do not care to inflict any further delay, and have therefore concluded to announce that the state rests."

Judge Field said that a request had been made that the opening argument be postponed until Monday and if there were no objections it would be done. Non were heard.

"I would like to have a definite understanding, however, among attorneys that this case is now closed, and positively no further testimony can be introduced. Mr. Bailiff, remove the jury."

Mr. Snell Opens for the State.

At 9:25 Mr. Snell took up the opening argument for the state. He began by describing the premises accurately and in detail, and how at 7:30 on that Sunday night John Sheedy stepped out of his door and was fully assaulted and murdered.

"When darkness folded her sable mantle and wrapped its pall over this city on the evening of January 11 last, there had been planned and was on the even of execution a murderous conspiracy, which for devilish malevolence and hideous cunning, and depravity stands but bold and alone in the criminal annals of Lancaster county. I refer to the assault made that evening upon John Sheedy, and which culminated in his death the following day. The preliminaries for the commission of this murder had been arranged with careful reference to detail, and the parties concerned would, perhaps, have escaped punishment had not, the principal actor in the assault, strung to remorse by a guilty conscience, revealed the infamous conspiracy by a confession, which revealed the details in all their hideous deformity, and pilloried the accomplice before the gaze of a startled community."

He detailed the arrest and preliminary proceedings after suspicion had settled upon the defendants and showed how Monday McFarland had been a barber employed occasionally at the Sheedy home in dressing Mrs. Sheedy's hair, and that while so employed, an hour or more at a time, in such instances Mrs. Sheedy had ample opportunity to sound him and ascertain in what way she might avail herself of his services in securing her freedom.

"No man ever committed the awful crime of murder without a motive. What, then, was the motive that startled the nerves and seared the conscience of Monday McFarland? What prompted him to the commission of the most awful crime known to our statutes? There was a motive; what was it? It was Mary Sheedy, the wife of the man against whose life she was conspiring, and she urged him on not alone by the promise of great financial reward, but, as he says in his confession, by the sacrifice of her chastity to him. Still he could not nerve himself to attempt the life of a man who had been his benefactor, and to whom he had every reason to consider he owed a debt of gratitude he could never repay."

He dwelt at length upon the efforts of the defense to show that the most amicable relations existed between Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy by such witnesses as E. H. Andrus, C. O. Whedon and W. J. Marshall. witnesses who would not be at all likely to ever see John Sheedy pounding his wife or hear Mrs. Sheedy [acoiding?] her husband like a fish woman. The defense had purposely called witnesses who knew nothing of the facts and had studiously failed to ask any of their own witnesses, who were qualified to know, whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy lived happily, not even Mrs. Dean, the sister of the defendant, who lived in the family.

He then took up the evidence of the witnesses for the state--that of Mrs. Swift and Mrs. Hood, who unwillingly testified that their relations were anything but amicable, and that of Johnnie Klausner, who said that he had found Mrs. Sheedy once in tears and she had said she was going to get a divorce.

The record in the case failed to disclose that nay domestic infelicity had ever agitated the Sheedy family until after she had returned from Buffalo, bringing with her the picture of young Walstrom, and said that while the defense will endeavor to make it appear that Mrs. Sheedy's friendship fro Walstrom was a harmless one, still it is probable that each member of the jury will reflect that when a married woman evinces such an interest in a young man and exhibits his picture so proudly to her friends, he will arrive at the conclusion that he would prefer it were somebody's else wife than his own

The speaker referred to the relations existing between Walstrom and Mrs. Sheedy; how he came to the city soon after her return, hunted up Johnnie Klausner and introduced himself as the young man of whom Mrs. Sheedy had already spoken to Klausner; how they went together to a room in the Heater block, Walstrom paying two-thirds of the room rent, how soon afterwards Johnnie Klausner began carrying sealed notes, which were not addressed, between Mrs. Sheedy and Walstrom. If those notes were harmless notes why in the name of Mrs. Sheedy's innocence had not the defense brought at least one of Walstrom's notes, which were undoubtedly in their possession, into court to show how innocent they were. And it is a little remarkable that Mrs. Sheedy never sent any lunches to Klausner's room until Walstrom came to room with him, as Klausner testifies himself.

He took up Monday's confession and fave its chief points briefly, showed how every after fact confirmed the story, and now utterly impossible it would be for Monday or any other man to invent such a story.

Mr. Snell picked Monday's confession to pieces and told in detail how every known circumstance brought out in the testimony corroborated the entire truth and wonderful accuracy of that remarkable story of the criminal conspiracy.

Mr. Snell's closing point was the best he had made. It was to the effect that it would have been simply impossible for anyone to have made the assault on John Sheedy as it was committed unless he had had a confederate inside of the house to signal him when Mr. Sheedy was coming out, just Monday McFarland claimed Mrs. Sheedy signalled to him by raising the window blind. The plat will show that the north end of the house is but about twelve feet from the sidewalk. The testimony shows that Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy were sitting in the north room near the north windows, the curtains of which were up. The east window, opening out of the next room to the south, could afford no view of them. It would have been impossible for an intending assassin to watch their movements through the north windows, and he would have certainly been detected by the people constantly passing along that much travelled street. It was too light upon the porch for an assassin to have escaped observation had he chosen to crouch there while waiting for his victim to come out. any loiterer about the porch or from windows would certainly have attracted attention. But back about thirty feet or more from the fence, directly on the east side of the house, was an arbor, behind which the assassin must have secreted himself, just as Monday McFarland says in his confession that he did secrete himself. From this point it would be impossible to have discerned when Mr. Sheedy was coming out, bad not someone signalled his coming, just as Monday McFarland says in his confession she did, when he stepped upon the porch and struck that blow with the cane.

"And what does Mrs. Sheedy say in her testimony before the coroner? The east window that opens upon that porch opens out of the sitting room, wich is just south of the parlor. The door leading to the porch opens out of the parlor. To get to the kitchen from the parlor one passes through the sitting room. Mrs. Sheedy says that she helped John on with his overcoat and hat, and then started for the kitchen. Then it was that she raised that window curtain in the sitting room to let Monday McFarland know that her husband was coming."

Judge [Welr's?] Argument for Mrs. Sheeddy.

He was followed by Judge Weir of Mrs. Sheedy's counsel, who took up the forty minutes prior to noon, in introductory remarks, congratulating the jury upon the progress of the case toward completion and explaining how he came to be in the case--as a friend and neighbor of Mrs. Sheedy's uncle. Mr. Biggerstaff. He dwelt in an impressive manner upon the importance of the case, not only to the defense, but to the state. He said that without any semblance of flattery he could say that the chief counsel for the defense had done their duty faithfully, honestly and ably, and if he had been able to suggest to them one valuable thought or idea that would assist them in their work, he had done his duty. He complimented the jury upon the attention they had given the evidence. He then explained the duties of counsel for the state to be to honestly, fairly and impartially endeavor to see that crime meets its just punishment. He had no criticisms to make in relation to the counsel for the state. They had done their work faithfully, zealously and ably. When an attorney for the state exhibits undue zeal to secure conviction of a party accused he becomes a persecutor instead of a prosecutor.

The speaker then took up the two chief propositions of law involved in the case and detailed in the most minute manner their bearing upon their verdict. The first principle, one upon which counsel would all agree, was that the law presumes the defendants innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; not a doubt that might be conjured up, but a doubt that is reasonable. He quoted many principles and maxims of the law designed to serve as a shield for the accused and thoroughly fixed in the minds of the jurors the duty of considering the accused innocent until convinced of their guilt.

After discussing the law Judge Weir attacked the the theory advanced by the state as to the motve of the crime. He said the state endeavored to ;show that John Sheedy and his wife lived in great discord, and that the latter was therefore anxious to get rid of her husband; that to that end the state had shown that on one occasion she had said she had wanted to get a divorce. This was the strongest evidence shown by the prosecution on that point: that up to July last she was afflicted with a disease peculiar to women; that she was solicited to go east and put herself under the treatment of skilled physicians; that she did go, accompanied by her husband, who left her there: that while there she met and fell in love with a young man named Walstrom, and that she procured him to come to Lincoln. And the theory of the state was that it was because of her love for Walstrom that she was led to imbrue her hands in the blood of her kind and affectionate husband.

He said that the state had failed to bring any evidence. except a few isolated facts, in support of their theory , and all in the nature of circumstantial evidence. He explained at length the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, and urged the necessity of the establishment of a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence in order to convict, from which there must be missing not a single link.

He then returned to the fact that John Sheedy was a gambler and that the wife did not approve of the business. It also appeared that he was a king among gamblers and very naturally excited jealousy among others in the same business. Hence, very naturally and very reasonably, he had enemies among that class.

When the crime was committed and he was laid upon his deathbed by a blow administered at this own door, the question arose as to what was the source of that crime. Did it emanate from the jealousy of his companions in business, or did it emanate from the wishes of his wife. Which is the more reasonable theory? Could it not have been committed by same other than Monday McFarland? The speaker quoted the threatening letter received by Sheedy only four days prior to the assault, telling him that unless he let up on the other gamblers he would be killed.

He said that it was not until some days after the tragedy that some circumstance fastened suspicion upon Monday McFarland and at once the policemen and detectives saw a chance offered by this tragedy to make money. He dwelt at length in criticism of the methods adopted by the officers in extorting the alleged confession from Monday, and said that although God, in His inscrutable wisdom, had made him black, he was a human being, endowed with a human soul, and was entitled to the protection of the law, which was in this instance denied him. He urged at length the incompetency of that alleged confession because it was obtained by threats, violence and promise of immunity. If the jury was of the opinion, from the evidence, that that confession was obtained by threats or promises, then, the court would instruct them, they must exclude it from their consideration.

To prove that it was so obtained he referred to the fact that Marshal Melick at the very time of making the arrest, had made the first promise of immunity. He said: "If you make these disclosures it will be easier for you." He referred rather less courteously to James Malone, who, he said, seemed to be the centre of the prosecution and was called upon the testimony whenever testimony was needed, and related the testimony of W. W. Carder to the effect that Malone had endeavored to make Monday believe that a mob was being organized outside of the jail to hang him, and that as soon as it reached a hundred it would come for him. [Actusted?] by the fear thus engendered Monday had made the alleged confession. That was early Sunday morning. Later in the day this poor creature, feeling that he was deserted and that his life was in danger, was brought before the mayor and the marshal ad Dennis Sheedy, with a shorthand reporter behind the curtain, and there, still laboring under his violent sense of fear, had related the story introduced in the testimony.

The speaker also referred to the repetition of the confession before the coroner's jury as having been similarly obtained by threats and promises, all having been practically a part of the same transaction. He contended that there was testimony to show that Monday was sworn when he recited the confession, and said that if the jury so found from the preponderance of testimony, that confession should not be considered by them.

"We contend," said Judge Weir, " that the confessions proposed to be considered here were confessions extorted from this poor, miserable,ignorant black man by a violation of law, and if they were extorted from him by a violation of the law provided for his protection, they are powerless against him as evidence."

He also contended that these confessions, whether true or false, could not be considered as evidence of the guilt of Mrs. Sheedy. But the story itself need only be considered to convince one that it is absolutely false. He contended that no man could believe that the story as told by Monday McFarland about "this good woman" was true. It was contrary to human nature.

"It is not true; it's against human nature: it is preposterous, and should be spurned with contempt from the consideration of every upright, honest, unprejudiced and impartial man.

The theory of the defense is that Mrs. Sheedy, in connection with the negro, murdered her husband; that while he was lying upon his bed languishing and dying from the effects of that blow, she was so lost to the sentiments of humanity that she mixed the fatal does in coffee. and unknown to the physician in charge, administered it to her husband."

He dwelt upon the improbability of such a theory because of its repugnance to the idea of wifely affection. Then followed the autopsy and the analysis of the contents of the stomach. in which no poison was found. Then they brought a chemist from Chicago. took up the body again, submitted other portions of the body to an analysis in their real to fasten the crime upon the wife. yet all the appliances of science had failed to reveal the presence of morphine poisoning or any other poisoning. He thought that at this point the prosecution would have paused to reflect upon the persecution of this woman and that Dennis Sheedy, who appeared to be furnishing the means therefor, would have foregone further persecution, and in a burst of eloquence denounced the course of Dennis Sheedy as a malignant effort to persecute and destroy the beloved and innocent wife of his head brother.

Mr. Snell Opens for the State.