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. I am willing to assume the responsibility of everything I have done in connection with this prosecution, and I answer by saying that I have been prompted by an honest motive. I have done what I have done because I believed the parties arraigned before you are guilty of the crime of which they stand charged. You have heard a great deal said, and there has been great complaint, and much of it about the manner of this prosecution. They would have you believe that we have purchased evidence; that we fixed up a case; that there is a conspiracy here for the purpose of oppressing a wronged woman, perchance, for the purpose of enhancing the coffers of the Sheedy relatives. According to the statements of counsel for the defense nothing has been done in connection with this prosecution has met with their approval. They have found fault with the witnesses; they have complained that a reward has been offered. They have complained that people have been hired to testify in this case; aye, they have. I find, complained that the state has employed additional counsel to assist in this prosecution. Is there anything out of the way in employing assistant counsel in the prosecution of a great criminal case like this. Is it not done almost every month in the year. When Quin Bohannan was arraigned for murder, did not W. R. Kelly assist John [U?] Watson in the prosecution? Was not Mr. Strode one of the defendant's counsel in this case? So was he not in its second prosecution. Why, if I remember rightly in the trial of this case, counsel for the defense contented themselves with meeting the arguments advanced by the state as best they could. rather than complaining that additional counsel had been employed. And when my friend Woodward arose yesterday and presented his complaints in such a very forcible and dramatic manner, I began to fear that I should be eliminated from this case [?] the fast stages of it. You remember he was going to show you that we had no right to appear in this case. And from the emphasis with which he said that, I began to think my friend Lambertson and myself were to be eliminated about as thoroughly from this prosecution as the learned Judge Weir would have you believe yesterday, Mrs. Sheedy to be eliminated from this trial because no poison, he thought, had been found. Now this is an important case. It is one of the most important that, perhaps, any of you natural men will ever be called upon to decide. It has been a long tedious trial, but I think by the evidence we have finally spread out before your view, this will soon show that you can take hold of it, a piece at a time, analyze it, examine it reviewing carefully, see the drift and bearing of the evidence and the connection of these defendants with the murder of John Sheedy. And so far as I am concerned I would have you weigh carefully everything that has been said or told in connection with the evidence and arguments that have been given to you in this case. And remember that the state asks no conviction in this case unless we have convinced you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these parties are both guilty. And if we have convinced you, beyond a reasonable doubt, then we except you to meet your obligations like men. If is true that your verdict may affect the lives of two people, but remember that the lives of more people are at stake than the lives of these two defendants. Other people are innocent. These are not the only innocent people in this community. You must think of that. You must think that your oath and the law has imposed upon you a duty and an obligation as American citizens, and I believe that you will perform that duty manfully, fearlessly and conscientiously, whatever may be the result to the persons here before you.

It does not seem to me that the defense in this case ought to be heard to complain because the state, so far as it has been able, has exhausted every avenue for the purpose of apprehending the proper parties and gathering evidence with which to convince them. They have told you that private detectives were employed and that private rewards were offered. Is there anything wrong about that? Are we to be abused and slandered because we have employed detectives to apprehend criminals and father evidence together? Is it not always done? Do you remember of ever hearing of a murder case where rewards were not offered and where every effort was not made to gather the evidence together? Do you expect a community where a murder like this has been committed, to sit down quietly and give themselves no concern in regard to the matter? Must we stand like dumb cattle and make no effort to apprehend and punish the parties who have committed the murder in the midst of an enlightened, Christian, intelligent community? Don't forget that the fewest murders are committed where they are the most vigorously [presected?] and punished. And this is what has been attempted to be done in this case. And it has not been a very easy talk, I can assure you.

No we come down to the examination of the connection of these defendants with the murder of John Sheedy. This in some respects is a crime as we believe originated by a woman, being Monday McFarland as a tool for the purpose of carrying out the designs that she has hatched out in the silent hours of her meditation in her home, and our purpose shall be to show to you that Mrs. Sheedy is the guilty party and that Monday McFarland is no more than a pliant tool in her hands, used, perchance, for dealing the blow because he had the muscle to deal a more deadly blow than the woman.

I think Mrs. Sheedy had the nerve and the wicked intent of purpose and the heart to have stood opposite that door and slugged John Sheedy as he came out if she had had the physical strength to have done it. If you think for a moment that she did not have the courage you do not know the woman.

I must confess to you that Monday McFarland has some sympathy from me in this transaction. If ever I sympathized with a criminal arraigned here and being tried for murder in the first degree, it is Monday McFarland. I tell you frankly and I tell you candidly that my sympathy does go out for Monday McFarland--my sympathy goes out for any man who has lost the power of controlling his own desires and his own wishes in connection with a matter of this kind. While of course, nobody can excuse Monday McFarland for allowing himself to be need as an instrument of murder, while he ought to be punished. and I believe he will be, yet I am persuaded that this jury agrees with me that Monday McFarland had no murder in his heart until it was put there by this woman.

This murder of John Sheedy was not a murder in a fit of passion. It was not the murder of revenge. It was committed as a matter of pure dollars and cents. Now if you can find any palliating circumstances, any mitigating facts about a murder that has been concocted, that has been planned, that has been schemed for three or four months before it is carried out, apply them to Monday McFarland.

It seems to me that the attitude of Mrs. Sheedy in connection with this murder ought to be enough to paralyze the strongest heart, to break down the strongest mind, either male or female. Why in the name of God, look at the devastation that has been caused and spread behind this murder. Who was Monday McFarland when he was employed to commit this murder? You are told he was a barber, that he has a family. What is to become of him? To be hung? What is to become of his family, a widow and orphan children, with the father punished for crime? Why, it seems to me that the very thing itself ought to deter a woman or anybody from ever hiring a man who, so far as we know, had been an honest, upright citizen up to that time, to commit a murder, and for what? Aye, for the purpose of enabling this woman to satisfy a guilty love. Her's was the master hand, her's was the master mind, her's the genius that planned this murder and laid out the manner in which it should be carried out. It is beyond my comprehension how a man can get through the facts in [?] case honestly and carefully and reach any other conclusion. You do not believe for a moment that Monday McFarland went there and murdered the best friend he had on earth out of a spirit of revenge or in a mood of vengeance. No, you do not believe that.

You know there was a controlling power behind Monday McFarland. He tells you in his own evidence that he tried in every way upon earth to escape committing that murder. He had gotten into it so far that if he backed out he thought he was liable to be killed, and if he committed the murder he was liable to be murdered, so the poor devil was halting between two opinions. It mattered little to him which he did. He had not the power to resist the impulses that were instilled into his mind by this woman, yet he hesitated to commit the deed, and it was only when this woman had infused into his mind and heart the poison that was in hers; it was only when had infused into his mind the courage that was in hers; it was only when she was enabled to give a nerve of iron from her own, that he could muster up courage enough to commit this crime.

The able counsel who addressed you yesterday attempted to convince you that you should disregard this confession because, perchance, it was contrary to human nature. That nobody could read this confession and believe that a woman could so far forget her duties as a woman that she could fall so low, as to enter into a scheme of this kind. Did you ever hear of a, murder that sounded natural? Are not all murders unnatural? Man is not a natural murderer in his but I normal condition and in his natural

Highest of all in Leavening Power.--U.S. Gov't Report, Aug. 17, 1889.

Royal Baking

Powder

ABSOLUTELY PURE

state. You hear of a murder and look at the man and you say who would have thought that man would have done that. You look at another and say, it is utterly inscrutable. Human nature, I hail tonight. could not be so depraved--could not be so debased as to have committem such a diabolical crime.

That is always the case where a murder is committed. In almost every instance the community is shocked. The sensibilities are paralyzed, to hear of some of the crimes, committed by people you have known, to think that there could be lurking deadly murder in the heart of that man. I will confess that the boldness with which this crime was planned, and the boldness and skill with which it was carried out, is enough to make any ordinary man shrink from the very thought that such things can be. That a wife, living with her husband, in her presence, could deliberately and premeditatedly plan the murder of that man. I confess that there is something about this tragedy--something about this transaction, that at first makes it seem almost incredible that such a thing can be.

NOT COMPLETE 5/12

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. I am willing to assume the responsibility of everything I have done in connection with this prosecution, and I answer by saying that I have been prompted by an honest motive. I have done what I have done because I believed the parties arraigned before you are guilty of the crime of which they stand charged. You have heard a great deal said, and there has been great complaint, and much of it about the manner of this prosecution. They would have you believe that we have purchased evidence; that we fixed up a case; that there is a conspiracy here for the purpose of oppressing a wronged woman, perchance, for the purpose of enhancing the coffers of the Sheedy relatives. According to the statements of counsel for the defense nothing has been done in connection with this prosecution has met with their approval. They have found fault with the witnesses; they have complained that a reward has been offered. They have complained that people have been hired to testify in this case; aye, they have. I find, complained that the state has employed additional counsel to assist in this prosecution. Is there anything out of the way in employing assistant counsel in the prosecution of a great criminal case like this. Is it not done almost every month in the year. When Quin Bohannan was arraigned for murder, did not W. R. Kelly assist John [U?] Watson in the prosecution? Was not Mr. Strode one of the defendant's counsel in this case? So was he not in its second prosecution. Why, if I remember rightly in the trial of this case, counsel for the defense contented themselves with meeting the arguments advanced by the state as best they could. rather than complaining that additional counsel had been employed. And when my friend Woodward arose yesterday and presented his complaints in such a very forcible and dramatic manner, I began to fear that I should be eliminated from this case [?] the fast stages of it. You remember he was going to show you that we had no right to appear in this case. And from the emphasis with which he said that, I began to think my friend Lambertson and myself were to be eliminated about as thoroughly from this prosecution as the learned Judge Weir would have you believe yesterday, Mrs. Sheedy to be eliminated from this trial because no poison, he thought, had been found. Now this is an important case. It is one of the most important that, perhaps, any of you natural men will ever be called upon to decide. It has been a long tedious trial, but I think by the evidence we have finally spread out before your view, this will soon show that you can take hold of it, a piece at a time, analyze it, examine it reviewing carefully, see the drift and bearing of the evidence and the connection of these defendants with the murder of John Sheedy. And so far as I am concerned I would have you weigh carefully everything that has been said or told in connection with the evidence and arguments that have been given to you in this case. And remember that the state asks no conviction in this case unless we have convinced you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these parties are both guilty. And if we have convinced you, beyond a reasonable doubt, then we except you to meet your obligations like men. If is true that your verdict may affect the lives of two people, but remember that the lives of more people are at stake than the lives of these two defendants. Other people are innocent. These are not the only innocent people in this community. You must think of that. You must think that your oath and the law has imposed upon you a duty and an obligation as American citizens, and I believe that you will perform that duty manfully, fearlessly and conscientiously, whatever may be the result to the persons here before you.

It does not seem to me that the defense in this case ought to be heard to complain because the state, so far as it has been able, has exhausted every avenue for the purpose of apprehending the proper parties and gathering evidence with which to convince them. They have told you that private detectives were employed and that private rewards were offered. Is there anything wrong about that? Are we to be abused and slandered because we have employed detectives to apprehend criminals and father evidence together? Is it not always done? Do you remember of ever hearing of a murder case where rewards were not offered and where every effort was not made to gather the evidence together? Do you expect a community where a murder like this has been committed, to sit down quietly and give themselves no concern in regard to the matter? Must we stand like dumb cattle and make no effort to apprehend and punish the parties who have committed the murder in the midst of an enlightened, Christian, intelligent community? Don't forget that the fewest murders are committed where they are the most vigorously [presected?] and punished. And this is what has been attempted to be done in this case. And it has not been a very easy talk, I can assure you.

No we come down to the examination of the connection of these defendants with the murder of John Sheedy. This in some respects is a crime as we believe originated by a woman, being Monday McFarland as a tool for the purpose of carrying out the designs that she has hatched out in the silent hours of her meditation in her home, and our purpose shall be to show to you that Mrs. Sheedy is the guilty party and that Monday McFarland is no more than a pliant tool in her hands, used, perchance, for dealing the blow because he had the muscle to deal a more deadly blow than the woman.

I think Mrs. Sheedy had the nerve and the wicked intent of purpose and the heart to have stood opposite that door and slugged John Sheedy as he came out if she had had the physical strength to have done it. If you think for a moment that she did not have the courage you do not know the woman.

I must confess to you that Monday McFarland has some sympathy from me in this transaction. If ever I sympathized with a criminal arraigned here and being tried for murder in the first degree, it is Monday McFarland. I tell you frankly and I tell you candidly that my sympathy does go out for Monday McFarland--my sympathy goes out for any man who has lost the power of controlling his own desires and his own wishes in connection with a matter of this kind. While of course, nobody can excuse Monday McFarland for allowing himself to be need as an instrument of murder, while he ought to be punished. and I believe he will be, yet I am persuaded that this jury agrees with me that Monday McFarland had no murder in his heart until it was put there by this woman.

This murder of John Sheedy was not a murder in a fit of passion. It was not the murder of revenge. It was committed as a matter of pure dollars and cents. Now if you can find any palliating circumstances, any mitigating facts about a murder that has been concocted, that has been planned, that has been schemed for three or four months before it is carried out, apply them to Monday McFarland.

It seems to me that the attitude of Mrs. Sheedy in connection with this murder ought to be enough to paralyze the strongest heart, to break down the strongest mind, either male or female. Why in the name of God, look at the devastation that has been caused and spread behind this murder. Who was Monday McFarland when he was employed to commit this murder? You are told he was a barber, that he has a family. What is to become of him? To be hung? What is to become of his family, a widow and orphan children, with the father punished for crime? Why, it seems to me that the very thing itself ought to deter a woman or anybody from ever hiring a man who, so far as we know, had been an honest, upright citizen up to that time, to commit a murder, and for what? Aye, for the purpose of enabling this woman to satisfy a guilty love. Her's was the master hand, her's was the master mind, her's the genius that planned this murder and laid out the manner in which it should be carried out. It is beyond my comprehension how a man can get through the facts in [?] case honestly and carefully and reach any other conclusion. You do not believe for a moment that Monday McFarland went there and murdered the best friend he had on earth out of a spirit of revenge or in a mood of vengeance. No, you do not believe that.

You know there was a controlling power behind Monday McFarland. He tells you in his own evidence that he tried in every way upon earth to escape committing that murder. He had gotten into it so far that if he backed out he thought he was liable to be killed, and if he committed the murder he was liable to be murdered, so the poor devil was halting between two opinions. It mattered little to him which he did. He had not the power to resist the impulses that were instilled into his mind by this woman, yet he hesitated to commit the deed, and it was only when this woman had infused into his mind and heart the poison that was in hers; it was only when had infused into his mind the courage that was in hers; it was only when she was enabled to give a nerve of iron from her own, that he could muster up courage enough to commit this crime.

The able counsel who addressed you yesterday attempted to convince you that you should disregard this confession because, perchance, it was contrary to human nature. That nobody could read this confession and believe that a woman could so far forget her duties as a woman that she could fall so low, as to enter into a scheme of this kind. Did you ever hear of a, murder that sounded natural? Are not all murders unnatural? Man is not a natural murderer in his but I normal condition and in his natural

Highest of all in Leavening Power.--U.S. Gov't Report, Aug. 17, 1889.

Royal Baking

Powder

ABSOLUTELY PURE

state. You hear of a murder and look at the man and you say who would have thought that man would have done that. You look at another and say, it is utterly inscrutable. Human nature, I hail tonight. could not be so depraved--could not be so debased as to have committem such a diabolical crime.

That is always the case where a murder is committed. In almost every instance the community is shocked. The sensibilities are paralyzed, to hear of some of the crimes, committed by people you have known, to think that there could be lurking deadly murder in the heart of that man.

NOT COMPLETE 5/12