35

A STARTLING ARRAIGNMENT

EXTRACTS FROM HON. F. M. HALL'S ARGUMENT.

Mr. Woodward Closes His Long Plea For Monday and Mr. Stearns Begins.

The Fair Defendant Sits Unmoved Throughout the Pointed Address of Mr. Hail on Behalf of the State--A Crowded Court Room.

Will Hardly Close To day.

The wonderful interest which has been aroused in the public mind by the great Sheedy trial was yesterday more fully demonstrated than at any previous time since its opening twenty-two days ago. At an early hour the large room was crowded, and a majority of the audience were ladies, among them being many of the most prominent in social leadership, wealth and fashion. Seats were at a premium throughout the day and many ladies who, it was suspected, would never deign to express their thankfulness for the privilege of a seat in a street car, stood up for hours around the walls while intently listening to the eloquence of the contending counsel. In spite of the unusual size of the crowd and the paucity of accommodations, the utmost good order prevailed, and it was not until Mr. Stearns, near the close of the day, aroused the [resibilities?] of all by several facetious remarks, that there was the necessity of even a call to order by the bailiff.

During Mr. Hall's argument, which was very pointed and at times severe upon Mrs. Sheedy, the face of the demure defendant was a study for a physiognomist or a mind reader. She appeared to pay no more attention to his castigatious than if they concerned someone whom she did not know and were delivered beyond her hearing. Not a smile or a frozen, a wink or a look betrayed her slightest interest in the discussion.

Monday McFarland was hardly less stolid and composed. His features were rigid in their composure, and while he seemed to hear every word uttered, the effect was imperceptible.

It was 9:15 when Mr. Woodward resumed his argument in behalf of the defense. He reviewed briefly the points of his argument of the evening before and immediately waded into his discussion of the admissibility of the confession as evidence.

"I challenge these gentlemen to explain to me one thing: If Monday McFarland had made that confession voluntarily to Jim Malone, why did they subsequently secure a stenographer and have it reduced to writing?"

He went over the entire testimony tending to show that the confession was scared out of his client by threats and promises.

"Was there anybody else connected with this assault? I claim that the evidence points to the fact that there was: that it points more unerringly toward somebody else than it odes toward my poor client."

He reverted to the fact that no one saw Monday McFarland around the house at that time, but on the contrary Henry Krauss was seen running, not toward the alley, but the southwest corner of the yard, and he had said that the man ran down the alley. How did he know? Krause says that John Sheedy shot one shot at him, and that he got behind a tree. The testimony of Krause wherein he explained how he came to be at that point was commented upon in ridicule.

"I don't say that Mr. Krause had anything to do with the assault, but I do say that his conduct on that occasion can not be explained upon any other theory than that he was connected with it."

The speaker took up the testimony of Hymen Goldwater and contended that no credence should attach to it whatever; that he never saw that cane and that his testimony was manufactured by himself and Jim Malone. Goldwater had said that he did not want to go upon the witness stand as he had too many enemies. The latter proposition no one would question, but the first the speaker begged leave to discredit. Goldwater did want to go upon the stand because he had his blood-money nestling at the bottom of his pocket. He showed the cane found in Monday's possession after the assault, how similar it was to the cane found at the Sheedy residence, and contended that Malone had procured Hyman Goldwater to identify the cane found as the one he had sold to Monday. He dwelt upon the testimony of L. C. Burr, wherein the latter claimed that Goldwater had told him that he had never had the fatal cane in his shop.

The exchange of overcoats asshown by Stepney was a very ordinary circumstance, and occurred several days ere the assault, and according to Henry Gerner and Dr. Ruth M. Woods the east window curtain was not down before the assault, so that Mrs. Sheedy could not by it have signalled Monday as claimed.

The state had harped upon the finding of Monday's gold ring in a pawnshop as a circumstance in corroboration of Monday's confession to the effect that Mrs. Sheedy had given him a gold ring, but there was not a single bit of testimony to identify that ring as ever having belonged to Mary Sheedy, which would be very easy to show if she had ever had it in her possession.

He then took up the testimony of Krause again, referred to the testimony implicating Gleason, Jetes, Bradeen and Williams in the suspicions entertained by John Sheedy.

"And there is one thing I want to ask the counsel for the state, and if they know it will take very little time for them to tell this jury. Where was Frank Williams on that eventful Sunday night? Where was he, I say? Have they told us?" No. One witness says he was at work at Bradeen's and another that he was somewhere else. Now, where was he? I don't know where he was at the time of the assault, but I know where he was a few moments afterward. Across the street, not a block away from the Sheedy residence, at the same place where Monday McFarland was also, at Hud Lindsey's. Don't you believe, gentlemen of the jury, that Frank Williams knew something about that crime? I don't believe that Gleason had anything to do with it. Ab Carder swears that Sheedy meant Gleason when he said the 'big man.' I don't believe it. If he had meant Gleason he would have said the tall man. When he said the big man he meant the heavy set man. And it is a little remarkable that Frank Williams as the evidence shows, skipped to Denver when this prosecution came on."

The speaker then took up the testimony of Wilber Mayes and the two boys, Hitchcock and Curry, smoothed over their discrepancies as of no consequence and harmonized it with the theory of Williams' connection with the crime. Ab Carder had said that Sheedy had hired him to watch two men. Gleason and Williams, and after the assault when Sheedy said it was the big man of the two he meant Williams.

"The same man who fired that shot on the 9th of December was the one who committed that Assault on the 11th day of January, and it was a white man. Which would you believe in reference to that matter--the confession of Monday McFarland that he did it or the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hosman to the effect that the assailant was a white man? Is not the latter statement much the more reliable: and is it not clearly proven that that shot was fired by a white man?

The [speaker?] commended the identification of the fatal cane by W. W. Carder as compared with the identification of the same cane by Goldwater, reasoning that if that was Carder's cane it could not have been the one which Goldwater sold to Monday McFarland.

The testimony of George Bradeen to the effect that William Gleason was in his place at the hour of the assault was probably true, but nowhere did Mr. Bradeen show that Frank Williams was there at that time, although it was shown that Williams was an employe there. It was a little remarkable that the evidence shows that at that gambling room, twenty-five minutes after the assault, it was stated that the gamblers had something to do with it. How did they come to say that? Was there not some foundation for that assertion?"

Reverting to the testimony of the two boys he said that it would have been very improbable that the officers should have seen or noticed the two men running down Twelfth street, as their attention was turned elsewhere.

"Why, gentlemen, I undertake to say, that had Mr. Hall been there and noticed a handsome woman in that vicinity, or had Mr. Lambertson been there and a fine thoroughbred bulldog been about that vicinity, a Comanche Indian might have done down that street in full way paint and they would not have seen him. Their attention would have been elsewhere."

Mr. Woodward closed after an argument consuming over three hours, of a wandering nature, but such a one as was well calculated to awaken the doubt in the minds of the jurors, upon which the defense appears to depend so much.

Frank Hall's Powerful Argument.

It was 10:45 when Mr. Hall took his place before the jury and launched into one of the most forcible, clean-cut and convincing arguments ever presented to a jury in Lancaster county. He began as follows:

"May it please the court and gentlemen of the jury, it as with some embarrassment and reluctance that I attempt to address you on this occasion: I believe that this is the first time that I have ever appeared in a criminal prosecution where the charge was murder in the first degree, and I think I realize something of the importance of this occasion and something of my duty in connection with this prosection.

I regret exceedingly that my embarrassment has been enhanced by the statements and accusations of counsel for the defense, in trying to make this jury believe that my position as counsel in this case is purely on for blood money. There has been more said upon this occasion than it seems to me the conduct of the relatives interested in this prosecution would warrant, and I dare say that you will hear more in that same line. They would try to create the impression in the minds of this jury that myself and my co-counsel, Mr. Lambertson, are brought into this case for the purpose of wringing a verdict from this jury in violation of the law and evidence.

Gentlemen of the jury, so far as I am concerned, I have no desire to force you beyond the law and the evidence for the purpose of wringing a verdict of guilty from you. Why it seemed necessary for the counsel for the defense to attempt to embarrass the situation of the assistant counsel to the state. I do not know. I could surmise; so can you. and I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

So far as the prisoners in this case are concerned. I have no ill-will against either of them. I would not raise a finger to do them the simplest injury. But this is not a time for morbid sentimentality. You have a duty to perform. I have a duty to perform, and so far as any criticismsor any reflection that may be cast upon me because perchance, I may have appeared as assistant in this prosecution.

A STARTLING ARRAIGNMENT

EXTRACTS FROM HON. F. M. HALL'S ARGUMENT.

Mr. Woodward Closes His Long Plea For Monday and Mr. Stearns Begins.

The Fair Defendant Sits Unmoved Throughout the Pointed Address of Mr. Hail on Behalf of the State--A Crowded Court Room.

Will Hardly Close To day.

The wonderful interest which has been aroused in the public mind by the great Sheedy trial was yesterday more fully demonstrated than at any previous time since its opening twenty-two days ago. At an early hour the large room was crowded, and a majority of the audience were ladies, among them being many of the most prominent in social leadership, wealth and fashion. Seats were at a premium throughout the day and many ladies who, it was suspected, would never deign to express their thankfulness for the privilege of a seat in a street car, stood up for hours around the walls while intently listening to the eloquence of the contending counsel. In spite of the unusual size of the crowd and the paucity of accommodations, the utmost good order prevailed, and it was not until Mr. Stearns, near the close of the day, aroused the [resibilities?] of all by several facetious remarks, that there was the necessity of even a call to order by the bailiff.

During Mr. Hall's argument, which was very pointed and at times severe upon Mrs. Sheedy, the face of the demure defendant was a study for a physiognomist or a mind reader. She appeared to pay no more attention to his castigatious than if they concerned someone whom she did not know and were delivered beyond her hearing. Not a smile or a frozen, a wink or a look betrayed her slightest interest in the discussion.

Monday McFarland was hardly less stolid and composed. His features were rigid in their composure, and while he seemed to hear every word uttered, the effect was imperceptible.

It was 9:15 when Mr. Woodward resumed his argument in behalf of the defense. He reviewed briefly the points of his argument of the evening before and immediately waded into his discussion of the admissibility of the confession as evidence.

"I challenge these gentlemen to explain to me one thing: If Monday McFarland had made that confession voluntarily to Jim Malone, why did they subsequently secure a stenographer and have it reduced to writing?"

He went over the entire testimony tending to show that the confession was scared out of his client by threats and promises.

"Was there anybody else connected with this assault? I claim that the evidence points to the fact that there was: that it points more unerringly toward somebody else than it odes toward my poor client."

He reverted to the fact that no one saw Monday McFarland around the house at that time, but on the contrary Henry Krauss was seen running, not toward the alley, but the southwest corner of the yard, and he had said that the man ran down the alley. How did he know? Krause says that John Sheedy shot one shot at him, and that he got behind a tree. The testimony of Krause wherein he explained how he came to be at that point was commented upon in ridicule.

"I don't say that Mr. Krause had anything to do with the assault, but I do say that his conduct on that occasion can not be explained upon any other theory than that he was connected with it."

The speaker took up the testimony of Hymen Goldwater and contended that no credence should attach to it whatever; that he never saw that cane and that his testimony was manufactured by himself and Jim Malone. Goldwater had said that he did not want to go upon the witness stand as he had too many enemies. The latter proposition no one would question, but the first the speaker begged leave to discredit. Goldwater did want to go upon the stand because he had his blood-money nestling at the bottom of his pocket. He showed the cane found in Monday's possession after the assault, how similar it was to the cane found at the Sheedy residence, and contended that Malone had procured Hyman Goldwater to identify the cane found as the one he had sold to Monday. He dwelt upon the testimony of L. C. Burr, wherein the latter claimed that Goldwater had told him that he had never had the fatal cane in his shop.

The exchange of overcoats asshown by Stepney was a very ordinary circumstance, and occurred several days ere the assault, and according to Henry Gerner and Dr. Ruth M. Woods the east window curtain was not down before the assault, so that Mrs. Sheedy could not by it have signalled Monday as claimed.

The state had harped upon the finding of Monday's gold ring in a pawnshop as a circumstance in corroboration of Monday's confession to the effect that Mrs. Sheedy had given him a gold ring, but there was not a single bit of testimony to identify that ring as ever having belonged to Mary Sheedy, which would be very easy to show if she had ever had it in her possession.

He then took up the testimony of Krause again, referred to the testimony implicating Gleason, Jetes, Bradeen and Williams in the suspicions entertained by John Sheedy.

"And there is one thing I want to ask the counsel for the state, and if they know it will take very little time for them to tell this jury. Where was Frank Williams on that eventful Sunday night? Where was he, I say? Have they told us?" No. One witness says he was at work at Bradeen's and another that he was somewhere else. Now, where was he? I don't know where he was at the time of the assault, but I know where he was a few moments afterward. Across the street, not a block away from the Sheedy residence, at the same place where Monday McFarland was also, at Hud Lindsey's. Don't you believe, gentlemen of the jury, that Frank Williams knew something about that crime? I don't believe that Gleason had anything to do with it. Ab Carder swears that Sheedy meant Gleason when he said the 'big man.' I don't believe it. If he had meant Gleason he would have said the tall man. When he said the big man he meant the heavy set man. And it is a little remarkable that Frank Williams.