242

WEEKLY NEBRASKA STATE JOURNAL FRIDAY MAY 29 1891 11

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

Made me Dicker With Goldwater.I

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young Curry's Unwitting Mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Snell Opens for the State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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 the 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 it 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.

Mr. Weedward'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 opening 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 this 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 land 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 confession 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's 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 Drank Waters, B. F. Prinneo, 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 slightest 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.

"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 Caucasian, or [word?] Caucasians 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 act!' 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 ignorance. The attorney also pointed out the words "intimate," "inducements," "she pictured out to me," "she gave me a limited time to commit the murder," and other similar expressions as ones such a person as Monday would not have been likely to make use of, and that they must have been put into his mouth.

Mr. Woodward called attention to the fact that the law books show the names of a hundred people who have been executed upon circumstantial evidence in cases where subsequent evidence proved them to have been innocent. He referred to the recent attempt at suicide of William Windnagel, the Randolph street butcher, who was found nearly dead in the rear of his shop with his throat cut, while a man named Carr was seen in the room with a bloody knife in his hand, and as soon as someone entered, had started to run. He told how if Windnagel had not recovered to tell that he had attempted suicide, the man Carr would have fallen a victim to circumstantial evidence.

Mr. Woodward contended that it was possible to conceive that John Sheedy was never murdered at all. "I have grave suspicion." said he, "that if no medical gentleman had ever crossed the threshold of John Sheedy's home that night he would have been alive to-day."

He told of the discrepancy of the expert testimony as to the cause of death. and ridiculed unmercifully the inaccuracy of the medical theories advanced, but in any event four out of the six physicians introduced had sworn that the blow administered by Monday did not cause death. He dwelt upon the possibility that the druggist might have given Dr. Hart something other than sulfonal, taken in connection with his many wounds and diseased organs, might have caused his death. Certain it was that the doctors had not definitely found the cause of Sheedy's death. First they had declared it to have been caused by compression due to the blow, and after the autopsy, when they found that they had made a mistake in their diagnosis, they had to find an excuse for that mistake.

The speaker then took up the confessions of his client and endeavored to show that many of the things he was reported to have said were very impossible. He ridiculed the idea that Mrs. Sheedy had ever frightened Monday as the latter claimed in that confession that she did, and contended that it was very improbable, as Monday must have known that had he gone to Sheedy and told him all. Sheedy would undoubtedly have protected him. He read from the confession wherein Monday had told of having once borrowed a revolver with which to commit the murder, bit had returned it and didn't remember from whom he had borrowed it. He contended that this was improbable, because the detectives had never discovered from whom Monday had borrowed any such weapon, which they would certainly have done if he had ever borrowed one.

He dwelt in ridicule and denunciation upon Monday's story of how Mrs. Sheedy had beaten him and even referred to his client as "this poor, miserable negro," to the confession as "this poor, miserable statement," and to the state as this "blood-thirsty, miserable prosecution."

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

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

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

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

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

"The same man who fired that shot on the 9th of December was the one who committed that assault on the 11th day of January, and it was a white man. Which would you believe in reference to that matter--the confession of Monday McFarland that he did it or the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hosman to the affect that the assailant was a white man?

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

Frank Bell's Powerful Argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREVER THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS ALWAYS A MOTIVE.

Whenever a crime is committed and and anybody is charged with it, you immediately commence looking for the motive. What was the motive in this case? Monday McFarland, as you see him here, is a colored man with family; had been a barber in this town for a good many years; so far as we know had never been accused of any crime; so far as we know had never murdered anybody; had been, so far as anything appears before this jury, about the same as any ordinary colored barber of a city of this kind would be. Now, what do we find? We find him budded out, in three or four months, into a full grown murderer. You have no doubt that Monday McFarland struck that blow. I don't believe there is a man on this jury that doubts that Monday McFarland dealt that deadly blow to John Sheedy. Now, if you believe that, what was it induced him to strike the blow? Nothing is shown but the best of feeling between Monday McFarland and John Sheedy, and Monday McFarland himself says he has always been a friend of his.

I will tell you what I think it was induced him to do it. I think it was the prisoner, Mrs. Sheedy; and how did she do it?

Why, she appeared to him in more alluring form and shape than did satan when he tempted Christ on the mountain. She first holds up to him the alluring temptation of money. The price that he was to receive; the amount that was to be counted out for him, which would have made it a mere matter of dollars against ounces of blood. "Oh, most pernicious gift, can thus seduce." He did not take kindly to the scheme. Then, the next thing, after she had dazzled his eyes with the gold, and wit the sparkling diamond, after she had dazed his senses with what he expected to receive--he was to become rich--her next step was to unfold to him her deplorable condition. She was abused: her husband had threatened her life, thus arousing the man's sympathy for a woman's wrongs. What next? Knowing that she must have this man in her power completely and absolutely, after she had appealed to his sympathy, after she had appealed to his [cupidity?], after she had held up to his gaze the allurements of wealth to barter away for murder, she then offers to barter away her virtue and her womanhood; and for what? For the murder of her husband. Great God, was ever womanhood and virtue thus bartered away for such a commodity?

The defense will answer that by saying she did not allow this negro the privilege of her body. That she did not sell her womanhood and virtue for murder. If I did not believe that, I would not state it. If you take and read that confession and show how she gradually unfolded this scheme to this man, it is just as natural as a, b, c. Tell me that a woman that has got murder in her heart would hesitate to sacrifice her virtue for its accomplishment. The negro, thus captivated by the woman, not only by promises of money, but by his sympathy for the woman in her wronged condition, as she said she was, where her husband had abused her and threatened to shoot her, then was added that stronger passion of affection for the woman, and then it was that this poor negro's manhood and self-control and self-possession departed, and from that day on he was nothing more nor less than a pliant tool in the hands of this woman. Didn't he tell you he went away not expecting to return, but when he went along the streets she called him in? He showed by his confession that he was trying to break away from the snares that had been thrown around him? He says himself that he was vacillating back there. As I said before, he had gotten into the net so deep it was easier to go forward than it was to go back, and so he did. His very conduct shows that. It tells you when he there to strike the blow his arm was unnerved, and immediately upon striking the blow the cane flew from his hand. He fell down as he was trying to get away from there. His mind was paralyzed with fear, and he was almost unable to get away from there at first. Now, how was he worked up to do this deed? He was coaxed, he was prodded, he was coerced, he was pushed with all the pressure that a determined woman could command, to force him to commit this deed. But, you say, would Mrs. Sheedy do it? Why should she hire a man to murder her husband? She must have had some motive. Aye, that was true, and that motive was a double one.

In the first place I desire to call your attention to this fact, that nothing seemed to be wrong in the Sheedy mansion until this woman had formed the acquaintance of Walstrom. With her acquaintance with him commenced the domestic trouble between Sheedy and her. Mrs. Sheedy tranferred her affections to another man, and if the truth could be known, if some one here could tell the whole truth in connection with her relations with John Sheedy they would tell a different story from anything you have heard yet. They would tell you that woman loathed and despised John Sheedy, so that his very touch was repulsive and a punishment to her. This commenced with her acquaintance with Walstrom. Following up the acquaintance with Walstrom which was begun there in Buffalo, N. Y., Walstrom soon comes to Nebraska.

What was about the first thing she tells Monday McFarland? That there is a man coming to take her away. Do you believe that? How do you think Monday McFarland would have started that, to have told such a story as that? He had forgotten the man's name. And when mentioned to him. he says, " Yes, Walstrom is the name."

Hadn't she grown pretty familiar in a very short space of time? Have you heard of her presenting any other friends with night-shirts on that occasion?. Was there nobody in the city of Lincoln with whom she had been acquainted longer and more intimately than with Mr. Walstrom? Johnny Klausner had been a young man around the house for a long time. Did she send him any hose, neckties, or any night-shirts, or any ring pouches? Why, it seems that Walstrom was the only man on God's earth that Mrs. Sheedy had thought enough of and known long enough and know intimately enough to make numerous presents to on Christmas day. Have you heard of her making any presents to her husband, John Sheedy? If that great and glad day of Christmas had impressed itself upon this woman's mind so as to arouse her with its genorosity to her friends, why in the name of God didn't she make her own husband some presents instead of Walstrom? Nothing wrong about a married woman making presents to a man she had met in Buffalo three months before? Is that the kind of decorum and good order that a man is to adopt in his own household? How did she know who Walstrom was, where he came from, or what kind of a man he was, if she had only casually met him in the hospital in Buffalo, N. Y.

If she had met him only as she meets other people here, why was she so solicitous to have young Klausner room with him when he came here? Had she ever hunted anyone to room with Johnny Klausner when he was there at the house that you heard of? Was she so solicitous about anybody else other than Walstrom? And yet they tell you there is nothing wrong about this, merely giving presents to a young friend in the shape of neckties, in the shape of hose, in the shape of a ring pouch, and in the shape night-shirts. Why, it is true it is no crime for a woman to give anybody night-shirts, or to give him presents of these other articles, there is nothing criminal in that. She had bought them and paid for them. They were hers, she could bestow them where she pleased, but don't you think these clothes went where the woman's affections were, and if they did, why had a married woman like Mrs. Sheedy any right, any lawful right, or any right in good morals, to be carrying on such conduct as that? Nothing wrong about that? Well, now, it is strange. I concede the fact that a married woman may write a man a letter or she may write him several letters. That, in itself, is no crime: but what we complain of is the contents of the letters. Did John Sheedy ever know of this clandestine correspondence? Tell me that. The man had been to Sheedy's house; had been seen out riding with him; had dined there; yet that John Sheedy knew this clandestine correspondence was being carried on between his wife and this importation from Birmingham, Alabama.

She knew Courtnay was the bosom friend of Mr. Sheedy. She knew [Low?] Franklin was the lifelong friend of her husband. Did she send the courier to him? No. Walstrom was the only man that she thought was interested in knowing that John Sheedy had been murdered.

There is an old saying, I believe, that is fraught with great truth. That is the proposition that "murder will out." It is true that crime may go unpunished for a time, but tardy justice will o'ertake it soon. So in this case, there was the fatal mistake that was made in connection with this murder, like every other murder, almost. There was the terrible mistake that Mrs. Sheedy made when she entrusted the murder of her husband to Monday McFarland. When she thought that Monday McFarland's mind could be made the safe storehouse for that secret. There is where she made the mistake. There is where made a blunder in thinking that such a diabolical crime as that could be locked in the mind of Monday McFarland and nobody should ever know of it.

Great God, in all this universe, has not made a single nook or corner where can be ever safely hid the crime of murder. The human mind is so situated that murder in the mind and heart is repugnant to every other natural faculty or natural thought. It is at war with all your desires. It is at war with your very nature, and when a man thinks he can commit murder and because, forsooth, he does it in the night, when no man sees, when no man knows, that therefore it is locked from the world in his own brain and heart, he makes a mistake.

Why that secret was in Monday McFarland's mind. It had occurred through his blood. It had permeated ever fiber of his body. It beamed in his eye. It was in his countenance, so that he thought that every man, woman and child who saw him could see it; could read it in his face; could detect it in his eye. He knew he was suspected. He knew that 1,000 eyes were searching and looking upon every inspiration and every act, till the secret took possession of him and lead him where it would. This was why Monday McFarland made the confession. That confession forced itself out of him. It broke down his manhood, it paralyzed his [sout?], until the only relief that Monday McFarland could see was to unburden his mind of that deadly inhabitant. And that is why he told it. He told it, not because he was afraid of Jim Malone nor the mob, but because he knew he was guilty. It was an unwelcome occupant of his mind. And I will venture the assertion that he never felt so good since this murder as when he had vomited forth his awful confession. When he had got rid of it, got it off his mind, got it off his heart. Then is the first time that Monday McFarland straightened up and felt that he was a man again and could breathe. He had been oppressed and could not sleep. Do you think you could sleep, gentlemen, were such a load as that on your mind, the first night after doing the deed? Do you think you could be composed or collected? That part of the programme seems to have been left to Mrs. Sheedy. She is the only cool, calm, collected, indifferent, sereme person in this prosecution. Why, from her conduct during this trial, you would be led to think she was not one of the people on trial. So calm, collected and serene, so absolutely unconcerned relative to this prosecution is she, that you would think it was not her. She has played her part well. But remember while she was playing that part, she omitted to play the part of the heartbroken, grief-stricken wife. While that part of the programme has been well maintained. I ask you whether her conduct in this court room during this trial has been that of the loving, affectionate, broken-hearted, bowed-down woman, whose husband has been brutally murdered. It is a pretty difficult thing to play a double part. It is pretty difficult to be a woman of iron nerve and to be a loving, affectionate wife at the same time. To brace up, to be resolute, to be firm, to be undaunted. Why the defendants would have you believe that nobody could mention John Sheedy's name without tears would gush forth and this woman would weep and mourn, filled with emotion. Has she manifested any of that here? No, she was playing another part. Do you think the woman that lost her husband and was brokenhearted on account of his murder, do you think a woman of that kind can sit here undaunted and unconcerned under what has been going on in this case.

He took up the confession and showed how in countless instances,it was corroborated by the testimony. Anna Bodenstein corroborated it in that Monday went often to [dress?] Mrs. Sheedy's hair. Mrs. Hood and Mrs. Carpenter corroborated it in that they had seen Walstrom's picture in the photograph album. And Mr. Hall dwelt upon the fact that Monday knew this as proof that Mrs. Sheedy had taken him into her parlor, told him of her lover and showed him the picture.

Monday's confession was corroborated by the finding of the gold ring he said she had given him; by the testimony of Goldwater and son as to the purchase of the cane and by its identification, agreeing with him even as to the price; by the testimony of Mrs.

WEEKLY NEBRASKA STATE JOURNAL FRIDAY MAY 29 1891 11

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

Made me Dicker With Goldwater.I

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young Curry's Unwitting Mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Snell Opens for the State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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 the 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 it 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.

Mr. Weedward'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 opening 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 this 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 land 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 confession 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's 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 Drank Waters, B. F. Prinneo, 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 slightest 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.

"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 Caucasian, or [word?] Caucasians 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 act!' 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 ignorance. The attorney also pointed out the words "intimate," "inducements," "she pictured out to me," "she gave me a limited time to commit the murder," and other similar expressions as ones such a person as Monday would not have been likely to make use of, and that they must have been put into his mouth.

Mr. Woodward called attention to the fact that the law books show the names of a hundred people who have been executed upon circumstantial evidence in cases where subsequent evidence proved them to have been innocent. He referred to the recent attempt at suicide of William Windnagel, the Randolph street butcher, who was found nearly dead in the rear of his shop with his throat cut, while a man named Carr was seen in the room with a bloody knife in his hand, and as soon as someone entered, had started to run. He told how if Windnagel had not recovered to tell that he had attempted suicide, the man Carr would have fallen a victim to circumstantial evidence.

Mr. Woodward contended that it was possible to conceive that John Sheedy was never murdered at all. "I have grave suspicion." said he, "that if no medical gentleman had ever crossed the threshold of John Sheedy's home that night he would have been alive to-day."

He told of the discrepancy of the expert testimony as to the cause of death. and ridiculed unmercifully the inaccuracy of the medical theories advanced, but in any event four out of the six physicians introduced had sworn that the blow administered by Monday did not cause death. He dwelt upon the possibility that the druggist might have given Dr. Hart something other than sulfonal, taken in connection with his many wounds and diseased organs, might have caused his death. Certain it was that the doctors had not definitely found the cause of Sheedy's death. First they had declared it to have been caused by compression due to the blow, and after the autopsy, when they found that they had made a mistake in their diagnosis, they had to find an excuse for that mistake.

The speaker then took up the confessions of his client and endeavored to show that many of the things he was reported to have said were very impossible. He ridiculed the idea that Mrs. Sheedy had ever frightened Monday as the latter claimed in that confession that she did, and contended that it was very improbable, as Monday must have known that had he gone to Sheedy and told him all. Sheedy would undoubtedly have protected him. He read from the confession wherein Monday had told of having once borrowed a revolver with which to commit the murder, bit had returned it and didn't remember from whom he had borrowed it. He contended that this was improbable, because the detectives had never discovered from whom Monday had borrowed any such weapon, which they would certainly have done if he had ever borrowed one.

He dwelt in ridicule and denunciation upon Monday's story of how Mrs. Sheedy had beaten him and even referred to his client as "this poor, miserable negro," to the confession as "this poor, miserable statement," and to the state as this "blood-thirsty, miserable prosecution."

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

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

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

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

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

"The same man who fired that shot on the 9th of December was the one who committed that assault on the 11th day of January, and it was a white man. Which would you believe in reference to that matter--the confession of Monday McFarland that he did it or the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Hosman to the affect that the assailant was a white man?

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

Frank Bell's Powerful Argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREVER THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS ALWAYS A MOTIVE.

Whenever a crime is committed and and anybody is charged with it, you immediately commence looking for the motive. What was the motive in this case? Monday McFarland, as you see him here, is a colored man with family; had been a barber in this town for a good many years; so far as we know had never been accused of any crime; so far as we know had never murdered anybody; had been, so far as anything appears before this jury, about the same as any ordinary colored barber of a city of this kind would be. Now, what do we find? We find him budded out, in three or four months, into a full grown murderer. You have no doubt that Monday McFarland struck that blow. I don't believe there is a man on this jury that doubts that Monday McFarland dealt that deadly blow to John Sheedy. Now, if you believe that, what was it induced him to strike the blow? Nothing is shown but the best of feeling between Monday McFarland and John Sheedy, and Monday McFarland himself says he has always been a friend of his.

I will tell you what I think it was induced him to do it. I think it was the prisoner, Mrs. Sheedy; and how did she do it?

Why, she appeared to him in more alluring form and shape than did satan when he tempted Christ on the mountain. She first holds up to him the alluring temptation of money. The price that he was to receive; the amount that was to be counted out for him, which would have made it a mere matter of dollars against ounces of blood. "Oh, most pernicious gift, can thus seduce." He did not take kindly to the scheme. Then, the next thing, after she had dazzled his eyes with the gold, and wit the sparkling diamond, after she had dazed his senses with what he expected to receive--he was to become rich--her next step was to unfold to him her deplorable condition. She was abused: her husband had threatened her life, thus arousing the man's sympathy for a woman's wrongs. What next? Knowing that she must have this man in her power completely and absolutely, after she had appealed to his sympathy, after she had appealed to his [cupidity?], after she had held up to his gaze the allurements of wealth to barter away for murder, she then offers to barter away her virtue and her womanhood; and for what? For the murder of her husband. Great God, was ever womanhood and virtue thus bartered away for such a commodity?

The defense will answer that by saying she did not allow this negro the privilege of her body. That she did not sell her womanhood and virtue for murder. If I did not believe that, I would not state it. If you take and read that confession and show how she gradually unfolded this scheme to this man, it is just as natural as a, b, c. Tell me that a woman that has got murder in her heart would hesitate to sacrifice her virtue for its accomplishment. The negro, thus captivated by the woman, not only by promises of money, but by his sympathy for the woman in her wronged condition, as she said she was, where her husband had abused her and threatened to shoot her, then was added that stronger passion of affection for the woman, and then it was that this poor negro's manhood and self-control and self-possession departed, and from that day on he was nothing more nor less than a pliant tool in the hands of this woman. Didn't he tell you he went away not expecting to return, but when he went along the streets she called him in? He showed by his confession that he was trying to break away from the snares that had been thrown around him? He says himself that he was vacillating back there. As I said before, he had gotten into the net so deep it was easier to go forward than it was to go back, and so he did. His very conduct shows that. It tells you when he there to strike the blow his arm was unnerved, and immediately upon striking the blow the cane flew from his hand. He fell down as he was trying to get away from there. His mind was paralyzed with fear, and he was almost unable to get away from there at first. Now, how was he worked up to do this deed? He was coaxed, he was prodded, he was coerced, he was pushed with all the pressure that a determined woman could command, to force him to commit this deed. But, you say, would Mrs. Sheedy do it? Why should she hire a man to murder her husband? She must have had some motive. Aye, that was true, and that motive was a double one.

In the first place I desire to call your attention to this fact, that nothing seemed to be wrong in the Sheedy mansion until this woman had formed the acquaintance of Walstrom. With her acquaintance with him commenced the domestic trouble between Sheedy and her. Mrs. Sheedy tranferred her affections to another man, and if the truth could be known, if some one here could tell the whole truth in connection with her relations with John Sheedy they would tell a different story from anything you have heard yet. They would tell you that woman loathed and despised John Sheedy, so that his very touch was repulsive and a punishment to her. This commenced with her acquaintance with Walstrom. Following up the acquaintance with Walstrom which was begun there in Buffalo, N. Y., Walstrom soon comes to Nebraska.

What was about the first thing she tells Monday McFarland? That there is a man coming to take her away. Do you believe that? How do you think Monday McFarland would have started that, to have told such a story as that? He had forgotten the man's name. And when mentioned to him. he says, " Yes, Walstrom is the name."

Hadn't she grown pretty familiar in a very short space of time? Have you heard of her presenting any other friends with night-shirts on that occasion?. Was there nobody in the city of Lincoln with whom she had been acquainted longer and more intimately than with Mr. Walstrom? Johnny Klausner had been a young man around the house for a long time. Did she send him any hose, neckties, or any night-shirts, or any ring pouches? Why, it seems that Walstrom was the only man on God's earth that Mrs. Sheedy had thought enough of and known long enough and know intimately enough to make numerous presents to on Christmas day. Have you heard of her making any presents to her husband, John Sheedy? If that great and glad day of Christmas had impressed itself upon this woman's mind so as to arouse her with its genorosity to her friends, why in the name of God didn't she make her own husband some presents instead of Walstrom? Nothing wrong about a married woman making presents to a man she had met in Buffalo three months before? Is that the kind of decorum and good order that a man is to adopt in his own household? How did she know who Walstrom was, where he came from, or what kind of a man he was, if she had only casually met him in the hospital in Buffalo, N. Y.

If she had met him only as she meets other people here, why was she so solicitous to have young Klausner room with him when he came here? Had she ever hunted anyone to room with Johnny Klausner when he was there at the house that you heard of? Was she so solicitous about anybody else other than Walstrom? And yet they tell you there is nothing wrong about this, merely giving presents to a young friend in the shape of neckties, in the shape of hose, in the shape of a ring pouch, and in the shape night-shirts. Why, it is true it is no crime for a woman to give anybody night-shirts, or to give him presents of these other articles, there is nothing criminal in that. She had bought them and paid for them. They were hers, she could bestow them where she pleased, but don't you think these clothes went where the woman's affections were, and if they did, why had a married woman like Mrs. Sheedy any right, any lawful right, or any right in good morals, to be carrying on such conduct as that? Nothing wrong about that? Well, now, it is strange. I concede the fact that a married woman may write a man a letter or she may write him several letters. That, in itself, is no crime: but what we complain of is the contents of the letters. Did John Sheedy ever know of this clandestine correspondence? Tell me that. The man had been to Sheedy's house; had been seen out riding with him; had dined there; yet that John Sheedy knew this clandestine correspondence was being carried on between his wife and this importation from Birmingham, Alabama.

She knew Courtnay was the bosom friend of Mr. Sheedy. She knew [Low?] Franklin was the lifelong friend of her husband. Did she send the courier to him? No. Walstrom was the only man that she thought was interested in knowing that John Sheedy had been murdered.

There is an old saying, I believe, that is fraught with great truth. That is the proposition that "murder will out." It is true that crime may go unpunished for a time, but tardy justice will o'ertake it soon. So in this case, there was the fatal mistake that was made in connection with this murder, like every other murder, almost. There was the terrible mistake that Mrs. Sheedy made when she entrusted the murder of her husband to Monday McFarland. When she thought that Monday McFarland's mind could be made the safe storehouse for that secret. There is where she made the mistake. There is where made a blunder in thinking that such a diabolical crime as that could be locked in the mind of Monday McFarland and nobody should ever know of it.

Great God, in all this universe, has not made a single nook or corner where can be ever safely hid the crime of murder. The human mind is so situated that murder in the mind and heart is repugnant to every other natural faculty or natural thought. It is at war with all your desires. It is at war with your very nature, and when a man thinks he can commit murder and because, forsooth, he does it in the night, when no man sees, when no man knows, that therefore it is locked from the world in his own brain and heart, he makes a mistake.

Why that secret was in Monday McFarland's mind. It had occurred through his blood. It had permeated ever fiber of his body. It beamed in his eye. It was in his countenance, so that he thought that every man, woman and child who saw him could see it; could read it in his face; could detect it in his eye. He knew he was suspected. He knew that 1,000 eyes were searching and looking upon every inspiration and every act, till the secret took possession of him and lead him where it would. This was why Monday McFarland made the confession. That confession forced itself out of him. It broke down his manhood, it paralyzed his [sout?], until the only relief that Monday McFarland could see was to unburden his mind of that deadly inhabitant. And that is why he told it. He told it, not because he was afraid of Jim Malone nor the mob, but because he knew he was guilty. It was an unwelcome occupant of his mind. And I will venture the assertion that he never felt so good since this murder as when he had vomited forth his awful confession. When he had got rid of it, got it off his mind, got it off his heart. Then is the first time that Monday McFarland straightened up and felt that he was a man again and could breathe. He had been oppressed and could not sleep. Do you think you could sleep, gentlemen, were such a load as that on your mind, the first night after doing the deed? Do you think you could be composed or collected? That part of the programme seems to have been left to Mrs. Sheedy. She is the only cool, calm, collected, indifferent, sereme person in this prosecution. Why, from her conduct during this trial, you would be led to think she was not one of the people on trial. So calm, collected and serene, so absolutely unconcerned relative to this prosecution is she, that you would think it was not her. She has played her part well. But remember while she was playing that part, she omitted to play the part of the heartbroken, grief-stricken wife. While that part of the programme has been well maintained. I ask you whether her conduct in this court room during this trial has been that of the loving, affectionate, broken-hearted, bowed-down woman, whose husband has been brutally murdered. It is a pretty difficult thing to play a double part. It is pretty difficult to be a woman of iron nerve and to be a loving, affectionate wife at the same time. To brace up, to be resolute, to be firm, to be undaunted. Why the defendants would have you believe that nobody could mention John Sheedy's name without tears would gush forth and this woman would weep and mourn, filled with emotion. Has she manifested any of that here? No, she was playing another part. Do you think the woman that lost her husband and was brokenhearted on account of his murder, do you think a woman of that kind can sit here undaunted and unconcerned under what has been going on in this case.

He took up the confession and showed how in countless instances,it was corroborated by the testimony. Anna Bodenstein corroborated it in that Monday went often to [dress?] Mrs. Sheedy's hair. Mrs. Hood and Mrs. Carpenter corroborated it in that they had seen Walstrom's picture in the photograph album. And Mr. Hall dwelt upon the fact that Monday knew this as proof that Mrs. Sheedy had taken him into her parlor, told him of her lover and showed him the picture.

Monday's confession was corroborated by the finding of the gold ring he said she had given him; by the testimony of Goldwater and son as to the purchase of the cane and by its identification, agreeing with him even as to the price; by the testimony of Mrs.