223

NOT LACKING IN INTEREST.

Thousands Thronging to Hear the Arguments in the Sheedy Case.

ELOQUENT WORDS FOR THE DEFENSE.

Pleading for the Accused Weman- Was a Murder Committed?- Will Probably Go to the Jury Tomorrow.

Lincoln, Neb., May 27. -[Special to The Bee]- The oratory of the opposing attorneys in presenting their arguments to the jury in the Sheedy murder trial has proven a greater attraction than the taking of testimony. The great court room, ample for almost any extraordinary occasion, can accommodate only a fraction of the crowd that seeks admission to listen to the speeches. Every available foor of space both inside and outside the forum is occupied, and the crowd in the corridors look enviously at those who have standing room inside the court room. Some of the leading ladies of the city have been in attendance. Yesterday and today many of the fair sex stood up all the time, glad to get admission into the court room, and eagerly drank in the eloquent passages in the speech of Attorney Hall, laughed at Mr. Stearns' drolleries and smiled at Colonel Philpot's wit.

At 9 a.m. Mr. R. D. Stearns resumed his argument before the jury. He denied the statement of Mr. Hall that crime decreases in the ratio that it is punished. He gave statistics showing that in the time of Blackstone, when there was a gallows on almost every square in London, there was more crime than there is now. He then denied that John Sheedy had died like a dog, and declared that he had every care in his dying hours that kindness and love could devise. He denied that circumstantial evidence is sometimes the strongest evidence. He declared that some of the greatest mistake ever made have occurred through circumstantial evidence. It is the most unreliable testimony in the world. There have been hundreds and hundreds of judicial murders committed through the evidence. Two or three cases were cited in which persons have been hung for murders of which they were not guilty, just because of the circumstantial evidence against them. "There has been something said about poison," he continued, "but I do not see how you can consider it in the face of so much conflicting testimony in regard to it by the physicians. If they thought at the time Sheedy was dying that he was suffering from morphine poisoning why didn't they administer to him the appliances that would give relief? The whole thing has been concepted by the prosecution. They are all after money. The doctors didn't believe that it was morphine poisoning." He then proceeded to ridicule the physicians who were put on the stand, insinuated that they were ignorant of everything in their business except that relating to morphine poisoning. He further intimated that they had all been trained by Lambertson for this special case. "What have you," said he, "to base a conviction of Mrs. Sheedy upon? Simply because she knew Walstrom, because she went over to Mrs. Hood's once and told that lady that she and her husband had two spates. Is it possible that you will convict a pure noble, high minded woman as Mrs. SHeedy is on such flimsy evidence as that? I think that she can find an asylum in your justice. It is your duty to pry open the prison doors with your verdict and let this innocentwoman freed. You should do this quickly. Mrs. SHeedy is as innocent as the new born babe. Whether Monday McFarland is guilty or not it does not affect Mrs. Sheedy."

Colonel J. E. Philpot then followed. He first started to give a brief biography of Monday McFarland, stating that the negro was born of slave parents in Kentucky in April, 1861. At this juncture County Attorney Snell objected to such a statement being [-ade?], because it had not been brought out in evidence. The court sustained the objection and the biography suddenly ended. Philpot then said: "However much," gentlemen of the jury, "You may wish to use the confession, it is your bounden duty not to regard it unless it is proven that it was voluntarily given. The court has relegated to you the responsibility of passing upon the competency of that confession as evidence. When we came to cross-examine Kinney, a witness for the state, he proved to be our strongest witness. He testified that Jim Malone had been with Monday McFarland an hour and half on the morning of the confession. What was done at that time? You can trace the serpents trail throughout the confession. They worried him for two hours and again about noon. The major and marshal and Jim Malone were there, Malone, the astute caucasian. After two hours' work with him they failed to extort from him what they wanted and again they applied the thumb screws to him."

The colonel then proceeded to read several of the questions put at the time of the main confession. Among them were these:

"Nothing will save you but telling the truth." "If you want to bear the brunt of the whole thing just stop where you are."

The colonel the proceeded: "Gentlemen of the jury, can you go to your jury room and decide that this confession was given freely and voluntarily? Nay. What are the last replies of the negro? 'You have persuaded me to tell.' 'You told me it would be better for me to tell the whole story'

Philpot then dared Lambertson in the face of the manner in which the confession was secured to prove that it was not secured through duress and promises. He then tackled Dr. Beachley, declaring that that physician didn't even know the names of the bones of the head until they were put into his mouth by Attorney Lambertson. He then declared the Dr. Casebeer, the man who conducted the autopsy, was a tyro in his profession and he was the last man who should have been entrusted with it. "This fellow," said Philpot, "didn't know where the arbor vitae, an important part of the length of the medulla oblongata. The prosecution knew that they didn't have evidence enough and they hired ghouls for gold to fig up the body of the dead man without the knowledge of the coroner. Portions of the body were turned over to experts for gold. When Dr. Winchett was on the stand he admitted that when the body was taken up the first time for an autopsy no examination was made of the contents of the bladder and the kidneys. Those are the places to look for traces of morphine poisoning, are they not? Then why didn't they look there? They didn't know enough to do so until the prosecution told them to do so. Mr. Hall stands up here and looks aggrieved that anyone should charge that they are working for gold. But the Sheedy estate amounted to $75,000 and this is what creates the keen desire for the prosecution of this case."

At this point Mr. Jenson, one of the jurors, was taken suddenly ill and the court had to adjourn until afternoon, although it lacked an hour of noon.

At 2 p. m. Colonel Philpot resumed his argument. He said:

"The prosecution would have you believe that Monday McFarland was the man who fired at John Sheedy a week before the final assault. But Mrs. Hosman swears that the man who fired at John Sheedy was a white man. Her husband saw the man more closely. He says that the man was a white man, wore a cap with a visor and had a brown overcoat. In the alleged confession it is stated that Monday had on a slouch hat and did not have on an overcoat. The story about the attempted shooting of John Sheedy was detailed in full in all the newspapers and how easily Monday could have manufactured the story, but he would fall down when he came to the description of the dress of the man who fired the shot. But the fact is that the story was put into his mouth through android questioning. The prosecution would have you believe that there were only three persons at the Sheedy residence the night of the assault. We say that there were four. According to the testimony of Mrs. Dr. Wood, the blind was up all the time until after the assault. This is the converse of what the prosecution claims - that the blind was down until just before the assault, when it was raised. When Mr. Mays heard the fifth shot fired he testified that he saw two men running, one to the east around the house and the other on the west side of the house. The boys, Currie and Hitchcock, say that they saw two men running south on twelfth below the alley. The two fugitives could have met at the alley and run south. See how the prosecution has sought to break down the evidence of this boy. The only thing that they have disproved is that he did not see a patrol wagon. This is a very small matter. In no other way have these boys crossed themselves. What strengthens the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John concerning the Savior. It is because their stories are not exactly alike. Mrs. Sheedy ought to be here today not as a defendant, but to prosecute the murderers of her husband. Why are you attorneys on the defense put to the extremity of proving an alibi for Gleason, the gambler? By Whom do you prove it? By a partner of Fleason. But the men who committed the deed could have committed the crime and gotten back where they were when they were seen. Why did John Sheedy hire Ab Carder to protect him? To watch Monday McFarland? No. What did John Sheedy say after he was struck - that McFarland struck him? No; that it was the larger man that struck him. Now when you go to your jury room the first thing you are to consider is the competency of the confession as evidence. If it was extorted by undue influence remember it is to have no bearing whatever on the case. The prosecution called your attention to a certain discoloration of the skull. This discoloration might have been caused by a slight clot of blood after the body had lain in the grave for four months. Further, gentlemen of the jury, when this poor negro came into the court, freed from the influences and fears of the sweat box, he would not forgeit his manhood by causing this innocent woman to suffer for a crime of which she is not guilty."

Mr. Jesse Strode, attorney for Mrs. Sheedy, followed, he declared first that the only reason the prosecution had for arraigning Mrs. SHeedy was because they were after the money that was in it. If John Sheedy had died a poor man, he insisted that there would not have been any prosecution. He commenced his talk in a gentle, sympathetic voice and said that he had watched the curl of scorn upon their faces as the prosecution had proceeded. In the press, he declared, there had been some the "most damning lies that could be concocted by newspaper reporters." he then said he would refer only to Snell, because Snell opened the argument and the other attorney had merely reiterated what Snell had said. He next declared that the first violator of the law whom he knew of when he came to this city was John Sheedy. John Sheedy was a gambler.

"There has been many a home," said he, "in which the actions of John Sheedy has caused ruin and sorrow because of the business in which he was engaged."

The speaker the referred to the fact that Mrs. Coll, who testified that she had often seen Monday McFarland standing on the corner of Thirteenth and P before the assault, was an enemy, and to Monday McFarland.

"The prosecution," he continued, "speaks of a number of witnesses whom they say we didn't put upon the witness stand. Dennis Sheedy, ar., left on the pretext of some telegram of 'important business,' 'family sick,' or some such invention. Dennis Sheedy, Jr., the young man who was at the Sheedy residence almost constantly for two years, and who was at the Sheedy home all the night following the assault, has not appeared. Why did he not appear? He has been spirited away."

Mr. Strode then commenced to tell about a trip that young Dennis SHeedy had taken to Wilbur. Mr. Lambertson objected and the objection was sustained. This angered Strode and he declared bitterly that Lambertson and his co-counsel had received money collected from the gamblers to give to Mrs. Sheedy. "It does not do for Lambertson and Hall to talk about charity," said he. This made Lambertson's eyes flash fire for the first time, and he retorted:

"And it does not do for this gentleman who got this money from the gamblers to talk in such a manner."

Strode got pale and angrily replied: "Did Anna Bodenstein, the domestic, testify as you wish?"

"Of course she didn't" Lambertson thundered, "you bribed her to keep her mouth shut!"

Peals of laughter followed and the court called the crowd to order. The judge then said: "Gentlemen, we will have a straight argument of this out of the evidence. If you depart from it again I will have to fine you."

Strode then intimated that all of the property that John Sheedy possessed at the time of his death had been acquired since this marriage, and then, turning to Lambertson, demanded if that was not true why the prosecution had not proven that it was not.

"We didn't need to," replied Lambertson, "we had Monday McFarland's confession to that effect."

"O, Monday McFarland's confession? Don't you know that it is not to go in as evidence as far as it concerns Mrs. Sheedy? And yet you have tried to use it as evidence."

Mr. Lambertson smiled and said nothing.

Mr. Strode then proceeded to tell how Mr. Sheedy had at one time corrupted the city council with money.

Mr. Strode next showed that the only evidence against Mrs. Sheedy was the confession of Monday McFarland, and this, he declared, could not go in as evidence. He then affirmed that the prosecution had spoken of clandestine meetings, but there were no meetings testified to except the two at the Carpenter residence. That criminal intimacy with Walstrom had been asserted but not proved. There were not evidence of conspiracy. The curtain signal had not been proven. He next dwelt at some length on arguments proving that the confession had been extorted from Monday McFarland. He read questions from the confession to prove this. He then exclaimed:

"Who had scared Monday McFarland? Who had made him believe that there was a mob coming? Who extorted the confession? Jim Malone! If what the mayor, the marshal and other witnesses present at the confession say are true, how can you use the confession in evidence? We asked Kinney if he did not say to Monday on that Sunday that if he told who the other parties were who were connected with him in the crime it would go easier with him? He answered 'no.' Why didn't they put Him Malone on the witness stand again so that we could cross-examine him about this matter."

"Why, Mr. Strode." interrupted Mr. Lambertson, "we did put Malone on the witness stand again, and you not only had a chance of cross-examining him, but you did so."

"I believe you are right," said Strode, and then proceeded:

"Now, gentlemen of the jury, before we can considered the second confession, we must have positive proof that the influences used to secure the first one had been removed."

The speaker then showed that after the negro had been questioned for about an hour and twenty minutes at the second cinfession, he declared that he had had nothing to do with the murder of John Sheedy and attempted to throw the entire blame on Mrs. Sheedy. This, Mr. Strode declared was evidence that the negro still feared that mob at that time and was trying to shield himself. The speaker then declared, after reading a number of the questions in the confession, that a confession obtained in such a manner could not be free and voluntary one. He dwelt on the fact that every time a confession was made Him Malone was present. He impressed upon the minds of the jurors the fact that if there is a doubt whether or not Monday McFarland was sworn at the time of the coroner's inquest that the confession should not be considered in evidence. Said he: "Take the confessions out of the case and nothing is left to prove that Monday McFarland murdered John Sheedy except the cane, and that has been poorly identified."

Court then adjourned until 9 a. m. tomorrow. Mr. Strode will continue his argument tomorrow morning and will be followed by Mr. Lambertson on behalf of the prosecution, which will close the arguments. The case will probably go to the jury sometime tomorrow afternoon.

NOT LACKING IN INTEREST.

Thousands Thronging to Hear the Arguments in the Sheedy Case.

ELOQUENT WORDS FOR THE DEFENSE.

Pleading for the Accused Weman- Was a Murder Committed?- Will Probably Go to the Jury Tomorrow.

Lincoln, Neb., May 27. -[Special to The Bee]- The oratory of the opposing attorneys in presenting their arguments to the jury in the Sheedy murder trial has proven a greater attraction than the taking of testimony. The great court room, ample for almost any extraordinary occasion, can accommodate only a fraction of the crowd that seeks admission to listen to the speeches. Every available foor of space both inside and outside the forum is occupied, and the crowd in the corridors look enviously at those who have standing room inside the court room. Some of the leading ladies of the city have been in attendance. Yesterday and today many of the fair sex stood up all the time, glad to get admission into the court room, and eagerly drank in the eloquent passages in the speech of Attorney Hall, laughed at Mr. Stearns' drolleries and smiled at Colonel Philpot's wit.

At 9 a.m. Mr. R. D. Stearns resumed his argument before the jury. He denied the statement of Mr. Hall that crime decreases in the ratio that it is punished. He gave statistics showing that in the time of Blackstone, when there was a gallows on almost every square in London, there was more crime than there is now. He then denied that John Sheedy had died like a dog, and declared that he had every care in his dying hours that kindness and love could devise. He denied that circumstantial evidence is sometimes the strongest evidence. He declared that some of the greatest mistake ever made have occurred through circumstantial evidence. It is the most unreliable testimony in the world. There have been hundreds and hundreds of judicial murders committed through the evidence. Two or three cases were cited in which persons have been hung for murders of which they were not guilty, just because of the circumstantial evidence against them. "There has been something said about poison," he continued, "but I do not see how you can consider it in the face of so much conflicting testimony in regard to it by the physicians. If they thought at the time Sheedy was dying that he was suffering from morphine poisoning why didn't they administer to him the appliances that would give relief? The whole thing has been concepted by the prosecution. They are all after money. The doctors didn't believe that it was morphine poisoning." He then proceeded to ridicule the physicians who were put on the stand, insinuated that they were ignorant of everything in their business except that relating to morphine poisoning. He further intimated that they had all been trained by Lambertson for this special case. "What have you," said he, "to base a conviction of Mrs. Sheedy upon? Simply because she knew Walstrom, because she went over to Mrs. Hood's once and told that lady that she and her husband had two spates. Is it possible that you will convict a pure noble, high minded woman as Mrs. SHeedy is on such flimsy evidence as that? I think that she can find an asylum in your justice. It is your duty to pry open the prison doors with your verdict and let this innocentwoman freed. You should do this quickly. Mrs. SHeedy is as innocent as the new born babe. Whether Monday McFarland is guilty or not it does not affect Mrs. Sheedy."

Colonel J. E. Philpot then followed. He first started to give a brief biography of Monday McFarland, stating that the negro was born of slave parents in Kentucky in April, 1861. At this juncture County Attorney Snell objected to such a statement being [-ade?], because it had not been brought out in evidence. The court sustained the objection and the biography suddenly ended. Philpot then said: "However much," gentlemen of the jury, "You may wish to use the confession, it is your bounden duty not to regard it unless it is proven that it was voluntarily given. The court has relegated to you the responsibility of passing upon the competency of that confession as evidence. When we came to cross-examine Kinney, a witness for the state, he proved to be our strongest witness. He testified that Jim Malone had been with Monday McFarland an hour and half on the morning of the confession. What was done at that time? You can trace the serpents trail throughout the confession. They worried him for two hours and again about noon. The major and marshal and Jim Malone were there, Malone, the astute caucasian. After two hours' work with him they failed to extort from him what they wanted and again they applied the thumb screws to him."

The colonel then proceeded to read several of the questions put at the time of the main confession. Among them were these:

"Nothing will save you but telling the truth." "If you want to bear the brunt of the whole thing just stop where you are."

The colonel the proceeded: "Gentlemen of the jury, can you go to your jury room and decide that this confession was given freely and voluntarily? Nay. What are the last replies of the negro? 'You have persuaded me to tell.' 'You told me it would be better for me to tell the whole story'

Philpot then dared Lambertson in the face of the manner in which the confession was secured to prove that it was not secured through duress and promises. He then tackled Dr. Beachley, declaring that that physician didn't even know the names of the bones of the head until they were put into his mouth by Attorney Lambertson. He then declared the Dr. Casebeer, the man who conducted the autopsy, was a tyro in his profession and he was the last man who should have been entrusted with it. "This fellow," said Philpot, "didn't know where the arbor vitae, an important part of the length of the medulla oblongata. The prosecution knew that they didn't have evidence enough and they hired ghouls for gold to fig up the body of the dead man without the knowledge of the coroner. Portions of the body were turned over to experts for gold. When Dr. Winchett was on the stand he admitted that when the body was taken up the first time for an autopsy no examination was made of the contents of the bladder and the kidneys. Those are the places to look for traces of morphine poisoning, are they not? Then why didn't they look there? They didn't know enough to do so until the prosecution told them to do so. Mr. Hall stands up here and looks aggrieved that anyone should charge that they are working for gold. But the Sheedy estate amounted to $75,000 and this is what creates the keen desire for the prosecution of this case."

At this point Mr. Jenson, one of the jurors, was taken suddenly ill and the court had to adjourn until afternoon, although it lacked an hour of noon.

At 2 p. m. Colonel Philpot resumed his argument. He said:

"The prosecution would have you believe that Monday McFarland was the man who fired at John Sheedy a week before the final assault. But Mrs. Hosman swears that the man who fired at John Sheedy was a white man. Her husband saw the man more closely. He says that the man was a white man, wore a cap with a visor and had a brown overcoat. In the alleged confession it is stated that Monday had on a slouch hat and did not have on an overcoat. The story about the attempted shooting of John Sheedy was detailed in full in all the newspapers and how easily Monday could have manufactured the story, but he would fall down when he came to the description of the dress of the man who fired the shot. But the fact is that the story was put into his mouth through android questioning. The prosecution would have you believe that there were only three persons at the Sheedy residence the night of the assault. We say that there were four. According to the testimony of Mrs. Dr. Wood, the blind was up all the time until after the assault. This is the converse of what the prosecution claims - that the blind was down until just before the assault, when it was raised. When Mr. Mays heard the fifth shot fired he testified that he saw two men running, one to the east around the house and the other on the west side of the house. The boys, Currie and Hitchcock, say that they saw two men running south on twelfth below the alley. The two fugitives could have met at the alley and run south. See how the prosecution has sought to break down the evidence of this boy. The only thing that they have disproved is that he did not see a patrol wagon. This is a very small matter. In no other way have these boys crossed themselves. What strengthens the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John concerning the Savior. It is because their stories are not exactly alike. Mrs. Sheedy ought to be here today not as a defendant, but to prosecute the murderers of her husband. Why are you attorneys on the defense put to the extremity of proving an alibi for Gleason, the gambler? By Whom do you prove it? By a partner of Fleason. But the men who committed the deed could have committed the crime and gotten back where they were when they were seen. Why did John Sheedy hire Ab Carder to protect him? To watch Monday McFarland? No. What did John Sheedy say after he was struck - that McFarland struck him? No; that it was the larger man that struck him. Now when you go to your jury room the first thing you are to consider is the competency of the confession as evidence. If it was extorted by undue influence remember it is to have no bearing whatever on the case. The prosecution called your attention to a certain discoloration of the skull. This discoloration might have been caused by a slight clot of blood after the body had lain in the grave for four months. Further, gentlemen of the jury, when this poor negro came into the court, freed from the influences and fears of the sweat box, he would not forgeit his manhood by causing this innocent woman to suffer for a crime of which she is not guilty."

Mr. Jesse Strode, attorney for Mrs. Sheedy, followed, he declared first that the only reason the prosecution had for arraigning Mrs. SHeedy was because they were after the money that was in it. If John Sheedy had died a poor man, he insisted that there would not have been any prosecution. He commenced his talk in a gentle, sympathetic voice and said that he had watched the curl of scorn upon their faces as the prosecution had proceeded. In the press, he declared, there had been some the "most damning lies that could be concocted by newspaper reporters." he then said he would refer only to Snell, because Snell opened the argument and the other attorney had merely reiterated what Snell had said. He next declared that the first violator of the law whom he knew of when he came to this city was John Sheedy. John Sheedy was a gambler.

"There has been many a home," said he, "in which the actions of John Sheedy has caused ruin and sorrow because of the business in which he was engaged."

The speaker the referred to the fact that Mrs. Coll, who testified that she had often seen Monday McFarland standing on the corner of Thirteenth and P before the assault, was an enemy, and to Monday McFarland.

"The prosecution," he continued, "speaks of a number of witnesses whom they say we didn't put upon the witness stand. Dennis Sheedy, ar., left on the pretext of some telegram of 'important business,' 'family sick,' or some such invention. Dennis Sheedy, Jr., the young man who was at the Sheedy residence almost constantly for two years, and who was at the Sheedy home all the night following the assault, has not appeared. Why did he not appear? He has been spirited away."

Mr. Strode then commenced to tell about a trip that young Dennis SHeedy had taken to Wilbur. Mr. Lambertson objected and the objection was sustained. This angered Strode and he declared bitterly that Lambertson and his co-counsel had received money collected from the gamblers to give to Mrs. Sheedy. "It does not do for Lambertson and Hall to talk about charity," said he. This made Lambertson's eyes flash fire for the first time, and he retorted:

"And it does not do for this gentleman who got this money from the gamblers to talk in such a manner."

Strode got pale and angrily replied: "Did Anna Bodenstein, the domestic, testify as you wish?"

"Of course she didn't" Lambertson thundered, "you bribed her to keep her mouth shut!"

Peals of laughter followed and the court called the crowd to order. The judge then said: "Gentlemen, we will have a straight argument of this out of the evidence. If you depart from it again I will have to fine you."

Strode then intimated that all of the property that John Sheedy possessed at the time of his death had been acquired since this marriage, and then, turning to Lambertson, demanded if that was not true why the prosecution had not proven that it was not.

"We didn't need to," replied Lambertson, "we had Monday McFarland's confession to that effect."

"O, Monday McFarland's confession? Don't you know that it is not to go in as evidence as far as it concerns Mrs. Sheedy? And yet you have tried to use it as evidence."

Mr. Lambertson smiled and said nothing.

Mr. Strode then proceeded to tell how Mr. Sheedy had at one time corrupted the city council with money.

Mr. Strode next showed that the only evidence against Mrs. Sheedy was the confession of Monday McFarland, and this, he declared, could not go in as evidence. He then affirmed that the prosecution had spoken of clandestine meetings, but there were no meetings testified to except the two at the Carpenter residence. That criminal intimacy with Walstrom had been asserted but not proved. There were not evidence of conspiracy. The curtain signal had not been proven. He next dwelt at some length on arguments proving that the confession had been extorted from Monday McFarland. He read questions from the confession to prove this. He then exclaimed:

"Who had scared Monday McFarland? Who had made him believe that there was a mob coming? Who extorted the confession? Jim Malone! If what the mayor, the marshal and other witnesses present at the confession say are true, how can you use the confession in evidence? We asked Kinney if he did not say to Monday on that Sunday that if he told who the other parties were who were connected with him in the crime it would go easier with him? He answered 'no.' Why didn't they put Him Malone on the witness stand again so that we could cross-examine him about this matter."

"Why, Mr. Strode." interrupted Mr. Lambertson, "we did put Malone on the witness stand again, and you not only had a chance of cross-examining him, but you did so."

"I believe you are right," said Strode, and then proceeded:

"Now, gentlemen of the jury, before we can considered the second confession, we must have positive proof that the influences used to secure the first one had been removed."

The speaker then showed that after the negro had been questioned for about an hour and twenty minutes at the second cinfession, he declared that he had had nothing to do with the murder of John Sheedy and attempted to throw the entire blame on Mrs. Sheedy. This, Mr. Strode declared was evidence that the negro still feared that mob at that time and was trying to shield himself. The speaker then declared, after reading a number of the questions in the confession, that a confession obtained in such a manner could not be free and voluntary one. He dwelt on the fact that every time a confession was made Him Malone was present. He impressed upon the minds of the jurors the fact that if there is a doubt whether or not Monday McFarland was sworn at the time of the coroner's inquest that the confession should not be considered in evidence. Said he: "Take the confessions out of the case and nothing is left to prove that Monday McFarland murdered John Sheedy except the cane, and that has been poorly identified."

Court then adjourned until 9 a. m. tomorrow. Mr. Strode will continue his argument tomorrow morning and will be followed by Mr. Lambertson on behalf of the prosecution, which will close the arguments. The case will probably go to the jury sometime tomorrow afternoon.