33

PLEADING FOR A VERDICT

SIX HOURS OF EARNEST ORATORY.

The Opening Arguments for the Three Parties to the Great Sheedy-McFarland Case.

County Attorney Snell Reviews the Evidence Generally in a Masterly Manner--Judge weir's Dignified Argument for Mrs. Sheedy.

Mr. Woodward Gets Fairly Begun.

The seats in the courtroom allotted to the public were not nearly filled yesterday morning when the opening hour arrived, but the arguments were not far advanced when not only the seats, but every available nook and corner in the large room were occupied by attentive and interested listeners. There were many more ladies present than at any time in the course of the trial and court officers and janitors had obligingly brought in a large number of camp chairs, which were placed inside the enclosure for the occupancy of the ladies, it was noticed that among the latter were many prominent Lincoln ladies who had not heretofore visited the trial, Mrs. Sheedy came into court accompanied by her uncle, Mr. Biggerstaff, and her three sisters, as well as Mr. Baker of Saline county, her brother-in-law. She was robed in the heavy mourning which she was worn during the trial and which becomes her so well. Her three sisters were arrayed in more cheerful colors. They had all made their toilet with unusual care, and as they reached the first-floor corridor coming from the jail they stopped just inside the large folding north door to submit to mutual inspection and put the finishing touched to the arrangement of their garments. Mrs. Sheedy appeared to be in an unusually cheerful mood. and smilingly chatted with her escort. While they stood thus employed Monday McFarland came in at the same door in the care of Deputy Sheriff Hoagland, conversing pleasantly with his sister, and followed by two other colored ladies. They passed the sextette at the door and repaired at once to the court room. where Monday resumed his accustomed seat at the end of the attorneys table.

It was several minutes ere Mrs. Sheedy came in and immediately every feminine neck in the court room was craned to catch a glimpse of the pale, composed face that looked out from the folds of the ample mourning veil. The members of the part appeared to be totally oblivious of the attention they were receiving, and quietly took their seats in the accustomed row facing the space between the court and the jury.

All of the attorneys were present except Captain Billingsley of McFarland's counsel, who appears to have dropped completely out of the case, having been supplanted by his partner, Mr. Woodward. It was thought at first that the attorneys would not probably consume more than two hours each, but the [?] of the case are so varied and exhaustive that one can hardly do justice to each feature of the evidence in that time. The eight arguments will, therefore, probably consume three entire days this week, closing probably tomorrow evening with the state's final argument by Mr. Lambertson.

It would be impossible to attempt to reproduce the arguments and the public must be content with a condensed statement of the substance of them without any reflection of the convincing language in which they were clothed.

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 [fouily?] assaulted and murdered.

"When darkness folded her sable mantle and wrapped its pullover this city on the evening of January 11 last, there had been planned and was on the eve of execution a murderous conspiracy, which for devilish malevolence and hideous cunning, and depravity stands out 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, stung 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.

He then took up the testimony, beginning with that of Mrs. Charles' Coil, who had frequently seen Monday McFarland hanging about the corner of Thirteenth and P streets, endeavoring to disguise himself and escape observation, and compared it with the confession of Monday, wherein he told of having stood at that corner to see Mrs. Sheedy go walking with her lover, the man who she said was ready to do the job if Monday didn't. While the defense had industriously and ingenuinely endeavored to make it appear that on standing at the corner of Thirteethn and P streets could not see the Sheedy residence, Monday McFarland's confession told how he had stood at that very corner and had seen John Sheedy come out of the house and go down town on that night when Walstrom took a walk with Mrs. Sheedy.

He told [?]ow the testimony of P. J. Stepney, Monday's cousin, showed that Monday had secured Stepney's overcoat on the Tuesday previous to the assault, the very day upon which Monday had also purchased the cane of Goldwater, showing that he was then formulating his cunning plans for the murder.

The took the testimony of William Chann showing that Monday was at the witness' room up to 6 or 7 o'clock, and how at a late hour he again appeared at Tinn's place and said he had lost his cane. He called attention to the failure of the array of counsel for the defense to allow where Monday was during the hour upon which the assault was committed.

The defense had endeavored to throw suspicion upon Gleason and Williams, the gamblers but they had not made a single effort to bring these parties to an accountability, and the testimony of Mr. Courtnay as to the threatening letter had been called in at the eleventh hour, when the state had no opportunity to meet it.

"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 scolding 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 any 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 for Walstrom was a harmless one, still it is probable that each members 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 concinsion 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.

The speaker also referred to the purchase of the night shirts and other gents' wear by Mrs. Sheedy; how she may have said that they were for her husband, but that the defense had failed to bring them into court from among John Sheedy's effects because they were in the possession of A. H. Walstrom; wherever he may be. He told how Walstrom had gone to Mrs. Carpenter's home with her and the latter's sister had gone after Mrs. Sheedy, who came at once: how immediately after the assault Mrs. Sheedy first called for some one to go after the priest and the very next moment for C. C. Carpenter to go and tell Walstrom that Sheedy had been assaulted how she called Walstrom her sweetheart and on the night of the first assault had said that people could not say that "her Henry" did it, [?] he was at work that night, and how she sent word to Walstrom 'that as he valued her friendship he should come to Sheedy's funeral. He contended that the only reasonable explanation of all these acts was that Mrs. Sheedy was maintaining criminal relations with Walstrom, and said that it was shown by the testimony that not until after Walstrom arrived that Mrs. Sheedy complained of her treatment by Sheedy or that John Sheedy threatened to shoot her.

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

He said that the defense would endeavor to create a sympathy for Mrs. Sheedy by picturing an ideal woman and dwelling upon the fact that John Sheedy was a gambler, but Mrs. Sheedy had married him with her eyes open. She knew he was a gambler and married him because he was a gambler with money and she would have little or nothing to do. He said that there was nothing preposterous in the supposition that Mrs. Sheedy had committed adultery with a black man when it is known that a woman with murder in her heart will do anything. The counsel for defense had already frequently referred to her as the "sad-faced" and "pensive-faced" woman and other sympathetic terms, but they could much more appropriately have designated her as the woman with an iron nerve and a desperate purpose at heart. 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.

He detailed how the finding of the solid gold ring in the pawnshop, where it had been left by Monday, corroborated the latter's statement that Mrs. Sheedy gave him a gold ring. He had said in his confession that on the morning of the assault he had cut a little boy's hair in the house just east of the Sheedy place. When the lady who lived there testified she said that Monday had cut her grandson's hair the morning of the assault. On the evening of the fatal assault, Monday claims in the confession while he was waiting in the back yard to see the east window curtain go up, Mrs. Sheedy came out to the pump and got some water. Some time afterwards she came out and worked the pump again, but did not get any water and did it merely as a subterfuge. It was then that she talked to him. When Mrs. Sheedy testified before the coroner's jury, she, too, had said that she had gone out that evening to get a pitcher of water. He explained how Mrs. Sheedy's own testimony before the coroner as to the east window curtain, had substantiated the darkey's story, showing that Mrs. Sheedy had pulled down the curtains a short time before her husband went out. This would permit her, by pulling up the curtain, to signal Monday that he husband was coming out.

Mr. Snell then took up the testimony of the defense and touched up Mr. W. W. Carder., for the readiness and positiveness with which he had identified the fatal cane as his own, and compared it with his total inability to identify his own hand writing in the police register when it was introduced in relation to whether or not the patrol wagon went out that night.

He took the confession of Monday McFarland in relation to the shot tired in the night of December 9, and showed how every minute feature of it was corroborated by the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hosman, except as to the color of the assailant. Even the relative positions of the parties, the clothing which the assailant wore and the time at which the assault occurred were the same in both statements. In Monday's confession he told of having fallen down at the corner of the porch just after firing that shot, and very strangely both Mr. and Mrs. Hosman testify that after firing the shot the man whom they identified as a white man fell down at the corner of the porch. He showed the utter fallacy of their positive assertion that the man was white by quoting the assertion of Mr. Hosman to the effect that when the man fell down, although it was late at night and the fugitive was some thirty feet away in the darkness, the witness could see that he wore three or four days growth of beard. He said that it was very likely that the supposed growth of beard was none other than Monday McFarland's swarthy complexion, else how did Monday McFarland, long ere it was known that Mr. and Mrs. Hosman would testify in the case at all, know that the man who fired that shot fell down at the corner of the porch, or any of the other facts as related by him and afterwards proven?

The speaker called attention to the hang dog deportment of the two boys who had testified to having seen two men run south on Twelfth street just after the assault, as well as to the discrepancies in their stories, and said that he had felt sorry for those boys ,as he had never felt sorry for a witness before. He reverted to the fact that the efforts of the defense to raise a doubt in the jurors' minds by testimony throwing suspicion upon two gamblers had been thwarted by positive testimony as to the whereabouts of those two men at the time of the commission of the assault. He showed how four of the six physicians sworn had testified that Sheedy's death was due to morphine poisoning and not to the blow, although they had to admit thereby that their first opinions in the case, prior to the autopsy, were in error.

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 as Monday McFarland and 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 front windows would certainly have attracted attention. But back about thirty feet or more from the fence, directly on the east side of thouse, 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, had 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 out of the sitting room, which is just south of the parlor. The floor leading to the porch opens onto the parlor. To get to the kitchen from the parlor one passes through the fitting 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 the window curtain in the sitting room to let Monday McFarland know that husband was coming.

The county attorney spoke for and hour and fifty-five minutes, and while there were no attempts at oratory, the logical arrangement of the facts upon which he dwelt impressed itself upon his bearers and commanded the utmost attention. His argument was commended on every hand and many brother attorneys and quite a number of his feminine bearers were seen congratulating him.

Judge Weir's Argument for Mrs. Sheedy.

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 towrad 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 honestly, fairly and impartially endeavor to see that crime meets its just punishment. He had no criticisims 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 venlict. 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 resonable doubt; not a doubt that might be conjured it 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 hands of the jurors the duty of considering the accused innocent until convinced of their guilt. He just fairly warmed by when the noon

MONDAY, TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY,

We place on exhibition in our east front windows a large number of

SUMMER DRESS PATTERNS

Of which we will Deliver Free

THURSDAY, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY

A pattern with on year's subscription to The Bazar Journal and Mothers' Assistant a very useful publication, and this way the publishers intend introducing an almost indispensible work.

HERPOLSHEIMER & CO.

TELEPHONE: OFFICE:
[176?] 1001 O Street

MOVING HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PIANOS A SPECIALTY

hour arrived and court adjourned for dinner.

The Afternoon Session.

At 2:10 Judge Weir resumed his argument on the propositions of law involved. There was the largest crowd present of any day of the trial. Lines of spectators stood up around the walls and the space inside the railing was filled with seats occupied by ladies.

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 his 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 inscrutible 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 promises 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 for 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 hand him, and that as soon as it reached a hundred it would come for him. Actuated 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 and 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.

The speaker cautioned the jury that it was not to place too high an estimate upon the testimony of detectives, as the law has recognized the fact that in their zeal to reap a reward by the conviction of an accused they would frequently transcend the bounds of honesty and rectitude.

"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, 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 believ 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 dose in coffee, and unknown to the physician in charge, administered it to her husband."

He dwelt upon the improbability of such a theroy because of its repugnancy 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 zeal 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 a 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.

"Can you in view of these few and isolated and innocent expressions of friendliness--can you put the brand of infamy upon her? Can you because of them fasten the awful crime of murder upon this ill-used and persecuted woman?"

He denounced the prosecution as the result of love of money, the root of all evil. and said that he did not believe that jurors could be utilized as factors in the perpetration of such persecution.

"Down there in that little home--It was not majestic in its appointments, it is true, but it was a home in which this loving husband and this loving wife had spent many happy years together--"

Here is was that Mrs. Sheedy burst into tears for the first time, but it was but a momentary indulgence, for in an incredibly short time she had dried her eyes and resumed her contemplative gaze at the base of the dais in front of her.

The speaker drew a sentimental and eloquent picture of the relations of husband and wife, referring to the testimony that showed Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy sitting side by side in the cheerful parlor just before the assault, and that showing her beside his bed the next day calling upon him to speak to her, and said that the history of criminal jurisprudence told of no case that would equal this if she were guilty.

Judge Wier had talked for two hours and twenty-five minutes when he voiced his thanks to the jury for the attention given him and closed.

It was an address that stamped him as an erudite lawyer and a dignified, forcible and eloquent orator. His voice is not strong at all times, but his utterances were measured and distinct and every word fell upon an attentive hearing. His closing remarks were especially well calculated to create a sympathy for his fair client, who sat with eyes half closed and moist with a promise of tears which never materialized. She seemed not to hear her eloquent advocate's references to her troubles, being evidently communing with her own thoughts.

Mr. Woodward's Argument for McFarland.

In opening his review of the evidence in behalf of Monday McFarland Mr. Woodward said he expected to show from the evidence that this prosecution was the result of a conspiracy as black as hell itself. He said that in the opneing of the case practices had been resorted to by counsel for the state more damnable than any that had ever been unearthed beneath the dome of heaven; that Mrs. Sheedy was a woman without issue and by the laws of the land was entitled to half the fortune of her dead husband. If convicted of his murder it went to others.

Hence it was, he expected to show, that under the law of the ladn the eminent counsel for the prosecution, secured by Dennis Sheedy's blood money, had no right whatever to be there. He said that when it was discovered that no poison had been found in the stomach of John Sheedy the state no longer had any case against Mary Sheedy, and she ought to have been discharged and probably would have been but for this conspiracy. Instead, thereof she was held until her persecutors had gone down into the grave in search again of poison upon which to convict her, and even during this trial Mr. Hall had gone to Chicago in his eager search for that poison. When the second analysis failed to reveal the presence of poison, the attorneys in this conspiracy come into court still contending that poison had been administered and that it had passed out of the system and could not therefore be found.

Mr. Woodward then took up the admissibility of the confessions and spent some time in the discussion of the testimony in relation to the threats or persuasion used to secure them. He quoted Mayor Graham who said that "considerable persuasion" was used, and contended that if any were used it was enough to take the confessions out of the consideration of the jury. Marshal Melick, whose word no one will doubt, testified that he had told Monday that it would be easier for him if he would tell the whole story. Even Jim Malone admitted that Monday had told him that he was afraid of a mob. The speaker raked the testimony of Malone all over, pointed out that he had told Frank Waters, B. r. Pinneo, Mr. Strode and Mr. Philpott that he had scared the confession out of Monday, and in view of his denial that he had had so told them, his testimony was unworthy of the slighest credence. He detailed the testimony of Officers Splain and Kinney to show that Monday was badly scared that Sunday morning, and told how, while the officers were in there urging Monday to tell the story, others out in the office struck the floor with their feet to make it appear that the mob was coming, and then it was that Monday McFarland, with visions of the mob and the rope in his brain," told his story in fear and trembling, but not until he had protested that "If they hang me they will hang an innocent man."

He called attention to the testimony in reference to Malone's methods and claimed that Klausner had testified that Malone had imprisoned him for two weeks and refused to liberate him, trying meantime to get some statement out of him against Mary Sheedy.

Mr. Hall interrupted the speaker to say that there was no such thing as that in the testimony, but Mr. Woodward contended that there was,and denounced the act as a "high-handed outrage which ought to subject Jim Malone to punishment."

"And this is the man whom this miserable, blood-thirsty prosecution would have you jurors believe to be a quiet, lamb-like gentleman, as gentle as a dove, who would not have done anything to injure or frighten this miserable negro, Monday McFarland, into telling this miserable story."

He went on to show that the confession before the coroner's jury was made under oath, and contended that none of the confessions could be considered unless the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they were voluntary.

The speaker then said that he not only claimed that the confession was not voluntary, but that it was a lie from beginning to end.

"It has been said that there was a negro in the wood pile, but I propose to show you that there is a Caucasion, or several Causcasions in the wood pile this time."

He said that in his early days he had been a school teacher himself and he was prepared to assert that Monday's alleged story would prove of itself that it was a lie from beginning to end, made up out of what Monday knew of the relations of Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy and interpolations of other parties.

"Monday McFarland is an ignorant negro barber. Let me read you some of the expressions found in that confession. The 'consequences of this art?' What does Monday McFarland know about the word 'consequences?' If he had met it in the big road, he would not have recognized it."

This assertion created considerable laughter and Monday grinned with undeniable pleasure at the reference to his [men?]orance. The attorney also [?]

(Continued on Seventh Page.)

PLEADING FOR A VERDICT

SIX HOURS OF EARNEST ORATORY.

The Opening Arguments for the Three Parties to the Great Sheedy-McFarland Case.

County Attorney Snell Reviews the Evidence Generally in a Masterly Manner--Judge weir's Dignified Argument for Mrs. Sheedy.

Mr. Woodward Gets Fairly Begun.

The seats in the courtroom allotted to the public were not nearly filled yesterday morning when the opening hour arrived, but the arguments were not far advanced when not only the seats, but every available nook and corner in the large room were occupied by attentive and interested listeners. There were many more ladies present than at any time in the course of the trial and court officers and janitors had obligingly brought in a large number of camp chairs, which were placed inside the enclosure for the occupancy of the ladies, it was noticed that among the latter were many prominent Lincoln ladies who had not heretofore visited the trial, Mrs. Sheedy came into court accompanied by her uncle, Mr. Biggerstaff, and her three sisters, as well as Mr. Baker of Saline county, her brother-in-law. She was robed in the heavy mourning which she was worn during the trial and which becomes her so well. Her three sisters were arrayed in more cheerful colors. They had all made their toilet with unusual care, and as they reached the first-floor corridor coming from the jail they stopped just inside the large folding north door to submit to mutual inspection and put the finishing touched to the arrangement of their garments. Mrs. Sheedy appeared to be in an unusually cheerful mood. and smilingly chatted with her escort. While they stood thus employed Monday McFarland came in at the same door in the care of Deputy Sheriff Hoagland, conversing pleasantly with his sister, and followed by two other colored ladies. They passed the sextette at the door and repaired at once to the court room. where Monday resumed his accustomed seat at the end of the attorneys table.

It was several minutes ere Mrs. Sheedy came in and immediately every feminine neck in the court room was craned to catch a glimpse of the pale, composed face that looked out from the folds of the ample mourning veil. The members of the part appeared to be totally oblivious of the attention they were receiving, and quietly took their seats in the accustomed row facing the space between the court and the jury.

All of the attorneys were present except Captain Billingsley of McFarland's counsel, who appears to have dropped completely out of the case, having been supplanted by his partner, Mr. Woodward. It was thought at first that the attorneys would not probably consume more than two hours each, but the [?] of the case are so varied and exhaustive that one can hardly do justice to each feature of the evidence in that time. The eight arguments will, therefore, probably consume three entire days this week, closing probably tomorrow evening with the state's final argument by Mr. Lambertson.

It would be impossible to attempt to reproduce the arguments and the public must be content with a condensed statement of the substance of them without any reflection of the convincing language in which they were clothed.

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 [fouily?] assaulted and murdered.

"When darkness folded her sable mantle and wrapped its pullover this city on the evening of January 11 last, there had been planned and was on the eve of execution a murderous conspiracy, which for devilish malevolence and hideous cunning, and depravity stands out 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, stung 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.

He then took up the testimony, beginning with that of Mrs. Charles' Coil, who had frequently seen Monday McFarland hanging about the corner of Thirteenth and P streets, endeavoring to disguise himself and escape observation, and compared it with the confession of Monday, wherein he told of having stood at that corner to see Mrs. Sheedy go walking with her lover, the man who she said was ready to do the job if Monday didn't. While the defense had industriously and ingenuinely endeavored to make it appear that on standing at the corner of Thirteethn and P streets could not see the Sheedy residence, Monday McFarland's confession told how he had stood at that very corner and had seen John Sheedy come out of the house and go down town on that night when Walstrom took a walk with Mrs. Sheedy.

He told [?]ow the testimony of P. J. Stepney, Monday's cousin, showed that Monday had secured Stepney's overcoat on the Tuesday previous to the assault, the very day upon which Monday had also purchased the cane of Goldwater, showing that he was then formulating his cunning plans for the murder.

The took the testimony of William Chann showing that Monday was at the witness' room up to 6 or 7 o'clock, and how at a late hour he again appeared at Tinn's place and said he had lost his cane. He called attention to the failure of the array of counsel for the defense to allow where Monday was during the hour upon which the assault was committed.

The defense had endeavored to throw suspicion upon Gleason and Williams, the gamblers but they had not made a single effort to bring these parties to an accountability, and the testimony of Mr. Courtnay as to the threatening letter had been called in at the eleventh hour, when the state had no opportunity to meet it.

"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 scolding 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 any 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 for Walstrom was a harmless one, still it is probable that each members 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 concinsion 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.

The speaker also referred to the purchase of the night shirts and other gents' wear by Mrs. Sheedy; how she may have said that they were for her husband, but that the defense had failed to bring them into court from among John Sheedy's effects because they were in the possession of A. H. Walstrom; wherever he may be. He told how Walstrom had gone to Mrs. Carpenter's home with her and the latter's sister had gone after Mrs. Sheedy, who came at once: how immediately after the assault Mrs. Sheedy first called for some one to go after the priest and the very next moment for C. C. Carpenter to go and tell Walstrom that Sheedy had been assaulted how she called Walstrom her sweetheart and on the night of the first assault had said that people could not say that "her Henry" did it, [?] he was at work that night, and how she sent word to Walstrom 'that as he valued her friendship he should come to Sheedy's funeral. He contended that the only reasonable explanation of all these acts was that Mrs. Sheedy was maintaining criminal relations with Walstrom, and said that it was shown by the testimony that not until after Walstrom arrived that Mrs. Sheedy complained of her treatment by Sheedy or that John Sheedy threatened to shoot her.

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

He said that the defense would endeavor to create a sympathy for Mrs. Sheedy by picturing an ideal woman and dwelling upon the fact that John Sheedy was a gambler, but Mrs. Sheedy had married him with her eyes open. She knew he was a gambler and married him because he was a gambler with money and she would have little or nothing to do. He said that there was nothing preposterous in the supposition that Mrs. Sheedy had committed adultery with a black man when it is known that a woman with murder in her heart will do anything. The counsel for defense had already frequently referred to her as the "sad-faced" and "pensive-faced" woman and other sympathetic terms, but they could much more appropriately have designated her as the woman with an iron nerve and a desperate purpose at heart. 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.

He detailed how the finding of the solid gold ring in the pawnshop, where it had been left by Monday, corroborated the latter's statement that Mrs. Sheedy gave him a gold ring. He had said in his confession that on the morning of the assault he had cut a little boy's hair in the house just east of the Sheedy place. When the lady who lived there testified she said that Monday had cut her grandson's hair the morning of the assault. On the evening of the fatal assault, Monday claims in the confession while he was waiting in the back yard to see the east window curtain go up, Mrs. Sheedy came out to the pump and got some water. Some time afterwards she came out and worked the pump again, but did not get any water and did it merely as a subterfuge. It was then that she talked to him. When Mrs. Sheedy testified before the coroner's jury, she, too, had said that she had gone out that evening to get a pitcher of water. He explained how Mrs. Sheedy's own testimony before the coroner as to the east window curtain, had substantiated the darkey's story, showing that Mrs. Sheedy had pulled down the curtains a short time before her husband went out. This would permit her, by pulling up the curtain, to signal Monday that he husband was coming out.

Mr. Snell then took up the testimony of the defense and touched up Mr. W. W. Carder., for the readiness and positiveness with which he had identified the fatal cane as his own, and compared it with his total inability to identify his own hand writing in the police register when it was introduced in relation to whether or not the patrol wagon went out that night.

He took the confession of Monday McFarland in relation to the shot tired in the night of December 9, and showed how every minute feature of it was corroborated by the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hosman, except as to the color of the assailant. Even the relative positions of the parties, the clothing which the assailant wore and the time at which the assault occurred were the same in both statements. In Monday's confession he told of having fallen down at the corner of the porch just after firing that shot, and very strangely both Mr. and Mrs. Hosman testify that after firing the shot the man whom they identified as a white man fell down at the corner of the porch. He showed the utter fallacy of their positive assertion that the man was white by quoting the assertion of Mr. Hosman to the effect that when the man fell down, although it was late at night and the fugitive was some thirty feet away in the darkness, the witness could see that he wore three or four days growth of beard. He said that it was very likely that the supposed growth of beard was none other than Monday McFarland's swarthy complexion, else how did Monday McFarland, long ere it was known that Mr. and Mrs. Hosman would testify in the case at all, know that the man who fired that shot fell down at the corner of the porch, or any of the other facts as related by him and afterwards proven?

The speaker called attention to the hang dog deportment of the two boys who had testified to having seen two men run south on Twelfth street just after the assault, as well as to the discrepancies in their stories, and said that he had felt sorry for those boys ,as he had never felt sorry for a witness before. He reverted to the fact that the efforts of the defense to raise a doubt in the jurors' minds by testimony throwing suspicion upon two gamblers had been thwarted by positive testimony as to the whereabouts of those two men at the time of the commission of the assault. He showed how four of the six physicians sworn had testified that Sheedy's death was due to morphine poisoning and not to the blow, although they had to admit thereby that their first opinions in the case, prior to the autopsy, were in error.

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 as Monday McFarland and 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 front windows would certainly have attracted attention. But back about thirty feet or more from the fence, directly on the east side of thouse, 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, had 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 out of the sitting room, which is just south of the parlor. The floor leading to the porch opens onto the parlor. To get to the kitchen from the parlor one passes through the fitting 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 the window curtain in the sitting room to let Monday McFarland know that husband was coming.

The county attorney spoke for and hour and fifty-five minutes, and while there were no attempts at oratory, the logical arrangement of the facts upon which he dwelt impressed itself upon his bearers and commanded the utmost attention. His argument was commended on every hand and many brother attorneys and quite a number of his feminine bearers were seen congratulating him.

Judge Weir's Argument for Mrs. Sheedy.

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 towrad 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 honestly, fairly and impartially endeavor to see that crime meets its just punishment. He had no criticisims 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 venlict. 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 resonable doubt; not a doubt that might be conjured it 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 hands of the jurors the duty of considering the accused innocent until convinced of their guilt. He just fairly warmed by when the noon

MONDAY, TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY,

We place on exhibition in our east front windows a large number of

SUMMER DRESS PATTERNS

Of which we will Deliver Free

THURSDAY, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY

A pattern with on year's subscription to The Bazar Journal and Mothers' Assistant a very useful publication, and this way the publishers intend introducing an almost indispensible work.

HERPOLSHEIMER & CO.

TELEPHONE: OFFICE:
[176?] 1001 O Street

MOVING HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PIANOS A SPECIALTY

hour arrived and court adjourned for dinner.

The Afternoon Session.

At 2:10 Judge Weir resumed his argument on the propositions of law involved. There was the largest crowd present of any day of the trial. Lines of spectators stood up around the walls and the space inside the railing was filled with seats occupied by ladies.

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 his 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 inscrutible 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 promises 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 for 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 hand him, and that as soon as it reached a hundred it would come for him. Actuated 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 and 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.

The speaker cautioned the jury that it was not to place too high an estimate upon the testimony of detectives, as the law has recognized the fact that in their zeal to reap a reward by the conviction of an accused they would frequently transcend the bounds of honesty and rectitude.

"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, 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 believ 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 dose in coffee, and unknown to the physician in charge, administered it to her husband."

He dwelt upon the improbability of such a theroy because of its repugnancy 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 zeal 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 a 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.

"Can you in view of these few and isolated and innocent expressions of friendliness--can you put the brand of infamy upon her? Can you because of them fasten the awful crime of murder upon this ill-used and persecuted woman?"

He denounced the prosecution as the result of love of money, the root of all evil. and said that he did not believe that jurors could be utilized as factors in the perpetration of such persecution.

"Down there in that little home--It was not majestic in its appointments, it is true, but it was a home in which this loving husband and this loving wife had spent many happy years together--"

Here is was that Mrs. Sheedy burst into tears for the first time, but it was but a momentary indulgence, for in an incredibly short time she had dried her eyes and resumed her contemplative gaze at the base of the dais in front of her.

The speaker drew a sentimental and eloquent picture of the relations of husband and wife, referring to the testimony that showed Mr. and Mrs. Sheedy sitting side by side in the cheerful parlor just before the assault, and that showing her beside his bed the next day calling upon him to speak to her, and said that the history of criminal jurisprudence told of no case that would equal this if she were guilty.

Judge Wier had talked for two hours and twenty-five minutes when he voiced his thanks to the jury for the attention given him and closed.

It was an address that stamped him as an erudite lawyer and a dignified, forcible and eloquent orator. His voice is not strong at all times, but his utterances were measured and distinct and every word fell upon an attentive hearing. His closing remarks were especially well calculated to create a sympathy for his fair client, who sat with eyes half closed and moist with a promise of tears which never materialized. She seemed not to hear her eloquent advocate's references to her troubles, being evidently communing with her own thoughts.

Mr. Woodward's Argument for McFarland.

In opening his review of the evidence in behalf of Monday McFarland Mr. Woodward said he expected to show from the evidence that this prosecution was the result of a conspiracy as black as hell itself. He said that in the opneing of the case practices had been resorted to by counsel for the state more damnable than any that had ever been unearthed beneath the dome of heaven; that Mrs. Sheedy was a woman without issue and by the laws of the land was entitled to half the fortune of her dead husband. If convicted of his murder it went to others.

Hence it was, he expected to show, that under the law of the ladn the eminent counsel for the prosecution, secured by Dennis Sheedy's blood money, had no right whatever to be there. He said that when it was discovered that no poison had been found in the stomach of John Sheedy the state no longer had any case against Mary Sheedy, and she ought to have been discharged and probably would have been but for this conspiracy. Instead, thereof she was held until her persecutors had gone down into the grave in search again of poison upon which to convict her, and even during this trial Mr. Hall had gone to Chicago in his eager search for that poison. When the second analysis failed to reveal the presence of poison, the attorneys in this conspiracy come into court still contending that poison had been administered and that it had passed out of the system and could not therefore be found.

Mr. Woodward then took up the admissibility of the confessions and spent some time in the discussion of the testimony in relation to the threats or persuasion used to secure them. He quoted Mayor Graham who said that "considerable persuasion" was used, and contended that if any were used it was enough to take the confessions out of the consideration of the jury. Marshal Melick, whose word no one will doubt, testified that he had told Monday that it would be easier for him if he would tell the whole story. Even Jim Malone admitted that Monday had told him that he was afraid of a mob. The speaker raked the testimony of Malone all over, pointed out that he had told Frank Waters, B. r. Pinneo, Mr. Strode and Mr. Philpott that he had scared the confession out of Monday, and in view of his denial that he had had so told them, his testimony was unworthy of the slighest credence. He detailed the testimony of Officers Splain and Kinney to show that Monday was badly scared that Sunday morning, and told how, while the officers were in there urging Monday to tell the story, others out in the office struck the floor with their feet to make it appear that the mob was coming, and then it was that Monday McFarland, with visions of the mob and the rope in his brain," told his story in fear and trembling, but not until he had protested that "If they hang me they will hang an innocent man."

He called attention to the testimony in reference to Malone's methods and claimed that Klausner had testified that Malone had imprisoned him for two weeks and refused to liberate him, trying meantime to get some statement out of him against Mary Sheedy.

Mr. Hall interrupted the speaker to say that there was no such thing as that in the testimony, but Mr. Woodward contended that there was,and denounced the act as a "high-handed outrage which ought to subject Jim Malone to punishment."

NOT FINISHED 5/27/2020.