252

MONDAY'S YARN.

------------------------------

Given to the Jury in the Sheedy Murder Case.

-----------------------------

WAS HE MOVED BY HOPE OR FEAR?

----------------------------

McFarland's Confession Goes in as Evidence

---The Defense Hold It Was Obtained by Threats and Promises---The Jury Will Have to Decide that Point--The Story of the Murder as Unfolded in Court.

AFTER seven days of laborious work and the examination of 470 persons a jury of twelve men, good and true, was secured Monday afternoon to try the defendants Mrs. Mary Sheedy and Monday McFarland for the murder of John Sheedy on Sunday evening, January 11, last. Of the first special panel but three jurors were selected; one from the second and eight from the third. The following are the names of the jurors sworn to well and truly try the case and true verdict return: James VanCampin, Little Salt; Geo. Albrecht, Highland; J. C. Jansen, Lincoln; Jacob Corey, Seventh ward; Albert Ward, Waverly; Henry L. Willis, 926 K street; Ed Young, Panama; John Robertson, Panama; C. S. Cadwallader, Little Salt; Luther Batten, Oak; James Johnson, Grant; Thomas Riley, Buda.

From a casual glance one would not conclude that this jury was composed of the leading and most influential citizens of the county. But what can be expected from the present system of selecting a jury. Men must be found who have not read anything about the case and who have not formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Such persons are not expected to be among the most intelligent, and considering everything, it is possible, therefore, that the jury in this case is about intelligent as could be secured.

A Juror Arrested.

Monday forenoon there was several hurried consultations among the attorneys on both sides, and the spectators generally wondered what was in the wind. At the noon adjournment twelve men went out, and when they came back there were but eleven. A. B. Norton, one of the twelve, a carpenter residing at Davy, was under arrest, charged with prejury. On his examination he had sworn that he had not formed or expressed any opinion concerning the case, and was therefore passed by both sides for cause. Affidavits were produced from his neighbors exactly to the contrary.

G. A. Sawyey testified that on May 1, Norton had a conversation with him when they were on their way to Lincoln; that at that time Norton had been drawn and subpoenaed as a juror in this case: that he said he was going to serve if possible; that a man in Lincoln had told him that there was $500 in it, and that he would hold the jury until he got his money; that the Sheedy's were rich and that if they could convict Mrs. Sheedy they would get the money sure, and he was going to have a part of it.

R. B. Crawford, a blacksmith, said that the very day Norton was summoned as a juror he came to his shop and said that if he could get to serve on the jury he would make some money out of it.

Affidavits to the same effect were read from W.H. Tarball, Patrick McGill, James O'Biden and Phillip Opp, all business men of Davy, one of whom had heard him say, "Oh hell, the woman will get clear and the nigger will hang. The damned nigger is guilty and ought to hang."

Some little parleying took place among the attorneys over the right of the defendants to another peremptory challenge, but was finally settled by giving them that right.

County Attorney Snell, under instructions from Judge Field, acted promptly, and filed an information in Justice Cochran's court, charging Norton with perjury. Norton was arrested and arraigned in court and pleaded not guilty. He is represented by R. J. Greene. A continuance was secured until May 25, his bail was fixed at $500 and his bond was signed by Messrs. J. H. McMurtry and J. R. Webster.

Norton indignantly denied the truth of the affidavits, and from outside parties it is learned that the neighborhood has not been on the most friendly terms for some time, and that these affidavits come from the anti-Norton faction.

The State's Case.

After the jury had been sworn to try the case, County Attorney Snell outlined the evidence which the state expect to introduce. He spoke substantially as follows:

"Gentlemen of the jury: We have been engaged now since last Monday morning in the selection of a jury to try this case and I presume that you are impressed with the importance of the case, sitting here as you have and seeing the number of men that have been examined and the challenges have been used on the part of the state and on the part of the defense, you men are selected to pass upon the issues that are involved in this trial. Possibly some of you knew John Sheedy personally. He came to this town in an early day and on the 11th day of January of this year at about half past seven o'clock, as he stepped out of his own door in this city, he was assaulted, struck over the left eye with some blunt instrument. The wound was dressed by two of our physicians, who at the time did not consider it serious. At 4 o'clock, however, Monday morning his symptoms were alarming and at ten o'clock that evening he died. Immediately after the wounds were dressed he went to bed, and the evidence will show you that he was given three doses of medicine known by the name of "sulfunal," to quiet his fever and allay his pain, that he might get some rest. The first dose was given him about eleven o'clock, and the second near twelve o'clock, and these were given him by his attending physician, Dr. Hart. At nearly one o'clock the third dose was given in some coffee, which was prepared by the defendant, Mary Sheedy, in this case. That he retained upon his stomach, and very shortly passed into what was at the time supposed to be natural sleep produced by sulfunal. At about four o'clock the next morning a nephew of the deceased, young Dennis Sheedy, called the attention of the attending physician to the fact that his uncle was breathing very heavily. It was then discovered that he was lying in a comatose condition, that he was breathing only about six times a minute, that his eyes were closed and his limbs were paralyzed. In other words he was suffering from all of the symptoms of morphine poisoning or compression of the brain caused by the blow, the two being very similar. I might add, however, that one symptom usually presented in morphine poisoning was absent, namely the contraction of the pupils of the eye. The expert testimony that will be introduced in this case will probably not be altogether harmonious as to the cause of Mr. Sheedy's death but it will all be within the variations, or counts rather, set up information. The information which is filed in this case charges the defendant, Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy, who was the wife of the deceased, with murdering John Sheedy. Originally the information contained six counts, but the first two were withdrawn from the consideration of the jury and they have been so withdrawn by order of the court, but the third count charges of the defendant, Monday McFarland with striking John Sheedy over the head with a cane and killing him, and also charges the defendant, Mary Sheedy, with being an accessory to that murder. The fourth count charges Mary Sheedy with the killing of John Sheedy by administering to him morphine, and the defendant, Monday McFarland as an accessory to the murder. The fifth count charges Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy both, jointly as principals, with the killing by the cane and by the administering of morphine, and the sixth and last count charges Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy by striking him over the head with a cane. Perhaps it might be well for us to pause here for a short time and get definitely fixed in the mind what is meant by the principal and what by an accessory before the fact. You will observe that Mrs. Sheedy is charged once as a principal, once as an accessory before the fact and twice as a principal jointly with the defendant Monday McFarland; likewise Monday McFarland is charged once as an accessory before the fact, once as a principal and twice as a principal jointly with the defendant Mrs. Sheedy. By the laws of this state one is a principal who does the crime or commits the act himself. Now for illustration, if A goes into a man's store and steals money or anything that is in that store, he does the act himself, and under the definition he is the principal, and if B, on the other hand, stays on the outside and watches in order to give a signal to the other man who is in there, the two work together, he likewise is a principal, although he did not go into the store and take the money, and is a principal. Or to illustrate it by this case: If Monday McFarland hit John Sheedy over the head with a cane and killed him, Monday McFarland would be a principal. If the evidence would show also that Mary Sheedy at the time of the delivery of this blow by Monday was in the Sheedy house and was signaling or doing anything to aid Monday McFarland in the doing of what he was doing, as, for instance, the raising of the window curtain to let Monday know Sheedy was about to come out of the house, she would also be a principal, although she would not have anything to do with the giving directly of the blow. An accessory before the fact is one who is not present at the time the crime was committed, but prior to that time has advised or aided or encouraged the execution of the crime. To illustrate that by this case: If the evidence should disclose to you, as it will be brought out here by the witnesses, that Mrs. Sheedy gave poison to Mr. Sheedy, but that prior to that time Monday McFarland had struck Mr. Sheedy over the head and disabled him in order that Mrs. Sheedy might follow up what he had done by the administering of poison, then Monday McFarland would be an accessory before the fact and Mrs. Sheedy would be the principal; or again, if it is shown that Monday McFarland delivered the blow that killed Mr. Sheedy, but prior to that time Mrs. Sheedy had employed Monday McFarland to do it, or had advised him to do it, or had encouraged him to do it, she would be an accessory before the fact, although she did not know that Monday McFarland was going to do it, or might not have been in the house at all.

JOHN SHEEDY.

So much for all the information, or what might be called the law of the case. Now as to the evidence against the defendants--first as to the evidence against Monday McFarland: The evidence will show that Monday McFarland was a barber, and has lived in this city some eleven years, and that he was well known by Mr. Sheedy. It will also disclose the fact that for some time prior to this assault upon Mr. Sheedy, Monday McFarland was wearing different clothes, not his own. On one occasion he would have on one kind of a coat and on another occasion he would have on another. And his hat--it might be a hat or it might be a cap. It seemed that he was trying to disguise himself for some purpose. It will also show you that he was seen very often on the corner of Thirteenth and P streets or near, and bear in mind that the Sheedy residence is near the corner of Twelfth and P, just on the opposite side of the block; and when he would be seen there he would try to prevent others from recognizing him. When anyone would come along he would step behind a tree or telephone pole or something of that kind to prevent recognition. The evidence will show to you that immediately after the assault upon Mr. Sheedy, Monday McFarland changed his overcoat; that prior to that time he had gotten an overcoat of one P. J. Stepney, and immediately after the assault was made upon Mr. Sheedy he exchanged the overcoat and got his own. The evidence will show to you that this P. J. Stepney is a relative of Monday's. The evidence will also show to you that Tuesday prior to the assault upon Mr. Sheedy, which occurred on Sunday, Monday McFarland purchased of one Hyman Goldwater, who is a pawnbroker in this city, an iron cane, which was wound with leather, and that the cane had certain peculiar marks upon it by which it could afterwards be, and was afterwards identified. And this cane, which was purchased on Tuesday, was found upon the Sheedy steps by the officers of this city immediately after the assault was made upon Mr. Sheedy. The evidence will further show you that Monday McFarland told one of his friends on this Sunday night immediately after this assault, that he had lost his cane and that he was used up with rheumatism, and finally we have his full confession.

Col. Philpott interrupted and protested that while he conceded the right of the state to say that was a confession, not one word of what that confession contained was permissible until the court had ruled upon its competency. The court sustained the objection against the protests of Messrs. Snell and Lambertson.

Mr. Snell proceeded: "I believe that the evidence in this case will show you that some one was trying to take the life of John Sheedy. A short time before this assault was made upon him he was shot at by some one, and the testimony of the hired girl who was there at the house will be that some one was prowling around the house and she was afraid to go out after dark. There was a conspiracy, in other words, on foot to get rid of John Sheedy. Now what motive had the defendant, Monday McFarland, to strike John Sheedy over the head with this cane? His motive, as we look at it and as we think the evidence will show you, is what implicates the defendant in this case, Mary Sheedy. The evidence will show you that John Sheedy had always liberally rewarded him: and that Mr. Sheedy also had McFarland go down to his house to care for his wife's hair; and we believe that this, on the part of Mr. Sheedy the sending him there, is what finally ripened into the conspiracy that took the life of John Sheedy."

Colonel Philpott objected to any reference to a conspiracy, as the counts charging conspiracy had been stricken out, but the court said that he would not only not forbid reference to a conspiracy, but that in his final instructions he would probably rule directly the opposite to the line asked by defense.

Mr. Snell then concluded:

"The evidence in this case will show to you that John Sheedy was a man some fifty odd years of age; that his wife, the defendant, was much younger, some thirty-five or thereabouts; that she had been married twice before she met Mr. Sheedy, and that she had lived with him as his mistress for a year or more prior to their marriage. The evidence will further show to you that owing to the fact that Sheedy was a gambler, that their social friends were few. The evidence will also show to you that they had no children, and that there was nothing to unite the two together except their own compatibility. The state will not go into their domestic relations prior to July of last year, but sometime in July of that year Mrs. Sheedy went to Buffalo, N. Y., for medical treatment, and there she met a young man some twenty-eight years of age by the name of A. H. Walstrom, and when Mrs. Sheedy returned home she brought with her a photograph of this young man. The evidence will also show to you that when she returned to Lincoln Mr. Sheedy did not meet her at the train, and of this she complained very bitterly, and she said at the time, that is after her return from Buffalo, that Sheedy was mean to her, that he treated her badly that he was crazy and that he threatened her life; that he carried a revolver and she was afraid of him, and that she was afraid he was going to shoot her. The evidence will also show to you that at that time she said to one of her neighbors that she was going to leave John Sheedy, and one afternoon she did go to this neighboring house and say that she had left John Sheedy. Now bear in mind the evidence will show that this, her leaving John Sheedy and all of this, took place when Walstrom, this young man that she had met in Buffalo, was in the city. The evidence will show to you that Walstrom's coming to this state was not chance. She had told several different persons in this town that Walstrom would be here, the only conclusion being that she had made arrangements with him when they were in Buffalo that he would come here, or they had carried on a secret and surreptitious correspondence in this manner. She had spoken to a young man by the name of John Klausner, who will be a witness in this case, and told him that when Walstrom did come here that she wanted him, that is Klausner, to room with this young man Walstrom, and so when Walstrom did come to this city he went over to the Windsor hotel, where this young man Klausner was at work, sought him out and the two went together down here to a building known as the Heater block and there they picked out a room and roomed together. The evidence will show to you that this Mr. Walstrom paid all of the room rent except about $1. It will also show to you that this young man carried notes back and forth between Mrs. Sheedy and this young man Walstrom. The prosecution does not know the contents of these notes. It will also show to you that Mrs. Sheedy sent down there to that room little [?] for this young man Walstrom to eat, wines and cakes and kick knacks and the likes. And the evidence will show to you that while this young man was here Mrs. Sheedy gave him presents, she was also seen with him at different times, and when this young man would call over at a neighbors Mrs. Sheedy would come over there. The evidence will also show to you that after Mr. Sheedy was shot at, sometime prior to this assault, that Mrs. Sheedy and remarked that the people could not say Harry did it, because Harry was at work that night. The evidence will also show to you that the very night that John Sheedy was assaulted and lay there upon his bed of pain, that Mrs. Sheedy sent word by Charlie Carpenter to this young man Walstrom that John Sheedy had been struck over the head by some one. The evidence will also show to you that after John Sheedy was dead she sent another messenger to this young man Walstrom, and told him as he valued her friendship he must be present at John Sheedy's funeral. We believe on the part of the state that we can convince you and show to you that Mrs. Sheedy was tired of her husband; that she had become infatuated with this young man; that she had determined to get rid of John Sheedy, get his property and enjoy it with her new found lover. Monday McFarland was the agent she chose to employ to assassinate her husband. She gave him money and promised him more to incite his cupidity; allowed him the pleasures of her body in order to get his confidence and get him into her possession and to inflame his courage, and she with the nerve of Lady Macbeth would finish with the drug what had been begun with the club, if the blow that Monday gave him was not sufficient to cause his death. Now, if poison was administered to Mr. Sheedy, who administered it? The evidence will show you that no one, so far as the state is aware, gave Mr. Sheedy anything except the doctors and herself, and all the medicine that the doctor gave him was the sulfonal, ten grains at two doses, which I mentioned in the first part of my statement to you. The dose that she gave him in the coffee--bear in mind the evidence will show you that immediately after that he passed into a stupor, commamose condition, from which he never recovered-- and Mrs. Sheedy, while her husband was sinking, going to his long rest, remarked to different persons who were about the room that the doctors were giving him something; that the blow would not have caused his death. This is very brief as an outline of what we believe the evidence will show you. We believe that the evidence will show you that John Sheedy was murdered, and that the defendants in this case murdered him. And if we show this to you beyond a reasonable doubt, we believe that it will be your duty as conscientious men and as upright jurors to return a verdict in accordance with such convictions, be the consequences and the penalty what they may.

(Continued page 4th.)

-------------------------------

Knob Hill.

The electric line is to be built at once along Fourteenth street to the prison; cars propelled by electricity are to make fifteen minute trips from 6 a. m. until midnight; any part of the city for 5 cents. The most elevated and slightly lots about the city and at the same time the most reasonable. No railroad tracks to cross; no noise nor smoke; no objectionable features. Call at my office and talk with me.
J. C. MCBRIDE,
Room 8, City Block.
18tf

--------------------------

For Rent.

One-half of a pleasantly located office in Burr block, ground floor, at able rate. Address 120 North Twelfth street.

MONDAY'S YARN.

------------------------------

Given to the Jury in the Sheedy Murder Case.

-----------------------------

WAS HE MOVED BY HOPE OR FEAR?

----------------------------

McFarland's Confession Goes in as Evidence

---The Defense Hold It Was Obtained by Threats and Promises---The Jury Will Have to Decide that Point--The Story of the Murder as Unfolded in Court.

AFTER seven days of laborious work and the examination of 470 persons a jury of twelve men, good and true, was secured Monday afternoon to try the defendants Mrs. Mary Sheedy and Monday McFarland for the murder of John Sheedy on Sunday evening, January 11, last. Of the first special panel but three jurors were selected; one from the second and eight from the third. The following are the names of the jurors sworn to well and truly try the case and true verdict return: James VanCampin, Little Salt; Geo. Albrecht, Highland; J. C. Jansen, Lincoln; Jacob Corey, Seventh ward; Albert Ward, Waverly; Henry L. Willis, 926 K street; Ed Young, Panama; John Robertson, Panama; C. S. Cadwallader, Little Salt; Luther Batten, Oak; James Johnson, Grant; Thomas Riley, Buda.

From a casual glance one would not conclude that this jury was composed of the leading and most influential citizens of the county. But what can be expected from the present system of selecting a jury. Men must be found who have not read anything about the case and who have not formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Such persons are not expected to be among the most intelligent, and considering everything, it is possible, therefore, that the jury in this case is about intelligent as could be secured.

A Juror Arrested.

Monday forenoon there was several hurried consultations among the attorneys on both sides, and the spectators generally wondered what was in the wind. At the noon adjournment twelve men went out, and when they came back there were but eleven. A. B. Norton, one of the twelve, a carpenter residing at Davy, was under arrest, charged with prejury. On his examination he had sworn that he had not formed or expressed any opinion concerning the case, and was therefore passed by both sides for cause. Affidavits were produced from his neighbors exactly to the contrary.

G. A. Sawyey testified that on May 1, Norton had a conversation with him when they were on their way to Lincoln; that at that time Norton had been drawn and subpoenaed as a juror in this case: that he said he was going to serve if possible; that a man in Lincoln had told him that there was $500 in it, and that he would hold the jury until he got his money; that the Sheedy's were rich and that if they could convict Mrs. Sheedy they would get the money sure, and he was going to have a part of it.

R. B. Crawford, a blacksmith, said that the very day Norton was summoned as a juror he came to his shop and said that if he could get to serve on the jury he would make some money out of it.

Affidavits to the same effect were read from W.H. Tarball, Patrick McGill, James O'Biden and Phillip Opp, all business men of Davy, one of whom had heard him say, "Oh hell, the woman will get clear and the nigger will hang. The damned nigger is guilty and ought to hang."

Some little parleying took place among the attorneys over the right of the defendants to another peremptory challenge, but was finally settled by giving them that right.

County Attorney Snell, under instructions from Judge Field, acted promptly, and filed an information in Justice Cochran's court, charging Norton with perjury. Norton was arrested and arraigned in court and pleaded not guilty. He is represented by R. J. Greene. A continuance was secured until May 25, his bail was fixed at $500 and his bond was signed by Messrs. J. H. McMurtry and J. R. Webster.

Norton indignantly denied the truth of the affidavits, and from outside parties it is learned that the neighborhood has not been on the most friendly terms for some time, and that these affidavits come from the anti-Norton faction.

The State's Case.

After the jury had been sworn to try the case, County Attorney Snell outlined the evidence which the state expect to introduce. He spoke substantially as follows:

"Gentlemen of the jury: We have been engaged now since last Monday morning in the selection of a jury to try this case and I presume that you are impressed with the importance of the case, sitting here as you have and seeing the number of men that have been examined and the challenges have been used on the part of the state and on the part of the defense, you men are selected to pass upon the issues that are involved in this trial. Possibly some of you knew John Sheedy personally. He came to this town in an early day and on the 11th day of January of this year at about half past seven o'clock, as he stepped out of his own door in this city, he was assaulted, struck over the left eye with some blunt instrument. The wound was dressed by two of our physicians, who at the time did not consider it serious. At 4 o'clock, however, Monday morning his symptoms were alarming and at ten o'clock that evening he died. Immediately after the wounds were dressed he went to bed, and the evidence will show you that he was given three doses of medicine known by the name of "sulfunal," to quiet his fever and allay his pain, that he might get some rest. The first dose was given him about eleven o'clock, and the second near twelve o'clock, and these were given him by his attending physician, Dr. Hart. At nearly one o'clock the third dose was given in some coffee, which was prepared by the defendant, Mary Sheedy, in this case. That he retained upon his stomach, and very shortly passed into what was at the time supposed to be natural sleep produced by sulfunal. At about four o'clock the next morning a nephew of the deceased, young Dennis Sheedy, called the attention of the attending physician to the fact that his uncle was breathing very heavily. It was then discovered that he was lying in a comatose condition, that he was breathing only about six times a minute, that his eyes were closed and his limbs were paralyzed. In other words he was suffering from all of the symptoms of morphine poisoning or compression of the brain caused by the blow, the two being very similar. I might add, however, that one symptom usually presented in morphine poisoning was absent, namely the contraction of the pupils of the eye. The expert testimony that will be introduced in this case will probably not be altogether harmonious as to the cause of Mr. Sheedy's death but it will all be within the variations, or counts rather, set up information. The information which is filed in this case charges the defendant, Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy, who was the wife of the deceased, with murdering John Sheedy. Originally the information contained six counts, but the first two were withdrawn from the consideration of the jury and they have been so withdrawn by order of the court, but the third count charges of the defendant, Monday McFarland with striking John Sheedy over the head with a cane and killing him, and also charges the defendant, Mary Sheedy, with being an accessory to that murder. The fourth count charges Mary Sheedy with the killing of John Sheedy by administering to him morphine, and the defendant, Monday McFarland as an accessory to the murder. The fifth count charges Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy both, jointly as principals, with the killing by the cane and by the administering of morphine, and the sixth and last count charges Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy by striking him over the head with a cane. Perhaps it might be well for us to pause here for a short time and get definitely fixed in the mind what is meant by the principal and what by an accessory before the fact. You will observe that Mrs. Sheedy is charged once as a principal, once as an accessory before the fact and twice as a principal jointly with the defendant Monday McFarland; likewise Monday McFarland is charged once as an accessory before the fact, once as a principal and twice as a principal jointly with the defendant Mrs. Sheedy. By the laws of this state one is a principal who does the crime or commits the act himself. Now for illustration, if A goes into a man's store and steals money or anything that is in that store, he does the act himself, and under the definition he is the principal, and if B, on the other hand, stays on the outside and watches in order to give a signal to the other man who is in there, the two work together, he likewise is a principal, although he did not go into the store and take the money, and is a principal. Or to illustrate it by this case: If Monday McFarland hit John Sheedy over the head with a cane and killed him, Monday McFarland would be a principal. If the evidence would show also that Mary Sheedy at the time of the delivery of this blow by Monday was in the Sheedy house and was signaling or doing anything to aid Monday McFarland in the doing of what he was doing, as, for instance, the raising of the window curtain to let Monday know Sheedy was about to come out of the house, she would also be a principal, although she would not have anything to do with the giving directly of the blow. An accessory before the fact is one who is not present at the time the crime was committed, but prior to that time has advised or aided or encouraged the execution of the crime. To illustrate that by this case: If the evidence should disclose to you, as it will be brought out here by the witnesses, that Mrs. Sheedy gave poison to Mr. Sheedy, but that prior to that time Monday McFarland had struck Mr. Sheedy over the head and disabled him in order that Mrs. Sheedy might follow up what he had done by the administering of poison, then Monday McFarland would be an accessory before the fact and Mrs. Sheedy would be the principal; or again, if it is shown that Monday McFarland delivered the blow that killed Mr. Sheedy, but prior to that time Mrs. Sheedy had employed Monday McFarland to do it, or had advised him to do it, or had encouraged him to do it, she would be an accessory before the fact, although she did not know that Monday McFarland was going to do it, or might not have been in the house at all.

JOHN SHEEDY.

So much for all the information, or what might be called the law of the case. Now as to the evidence against the defendants--first as to the evidence against Monday McFarland: The evidence will show that Monday McFarland was a barber, and has lived in this city some eleven years, and that he was well known by Mr. Sheedy. It will also disclose the fact that for some time prior to this assault upon Mr. Sheedy, Monday McFarland was wearing different clothes, not his own. On one occasion he would have on one kind of a coat and on another occasion he would have on another. And his hat--it might be a hat or it might be a cap. It seemed that he was trying to disguise himself for some purpose. It will also show you that he was seen very often on the corner of Thirteenth and P streets or near, and bear in mind that the Sheedy residence is near the corner of Twelfth and P, just on the opposite side of the block; and when he would be seen there he would try to prevent others from recognizing him. When anyone would come along he would step behind a tree or telephone pole or something of that kind to prevent recognition. The evidence will show to you that immediately after the assault upon Mr. Sheedy, Monday McFarland changed his overcoat; that prior to that time he had gotten an overcoat of one P. J. Stepney, and immediately after the assault was made upon Mr. Sheedy he exchanged the overcoat and got his own. The evidence will show to you that this P. J. Stepney is a relative of Monday's. The evidence will also show to you that Tuesday prior to the assault upon Mr. Sheedy, which occurred on Sunday, Monday McFarland purchased of one Hyman Goldwater, who is a pawnbroker in this city, an iron cane, which was wound with leather, and that the cane had certain peculiar marks upon it by which it could afterwards be, and was afterwards identified. And this cane, which was purchased on Tuesday, was found upon the Sheedy steps by the officers of this city immediately after the assault was made upon Mr. Sheedy. The evidence will further show you that Monday McFarland told one of his friends on this Sunday night immediately after this assault, that he had lost his cane and that he was used up with rheumatism, and finally we have his full confession.

Col. Philpott interrupted and protested that while he conceded the right of the state to say that was a confession, not one word of what that confession contained was permissible until the court had ruled upon its competency. The court sustained the objection against the protests of Messrs. Snell and Lambertson.

Mr. Snell proceeded: "I believe that the evidence in this case will show you that some one was trying to take the life of John Sheedy. A short time before this assault was made upon him he was shot at by some one, and the testimony of the hired girl who was there at the house will be that some one was prowling around the house and she was afraid to go out after dark. There was a conspiracy, in other words, on foot to get rid of John Sheedy. Now what motive had the defendant, Monday McFarland, to strike John Sheedy over the head with this cane? His motive, as we look at it and as we think the evidence will show you, is what implicates the defendant in this case, Mary Sheedy. The evidence will show you that John Sheedy had always liberally rewarded him: and that Mr. Sheedy also had McFarland go down to his house to care for his wife's hair; and we believe that this, on the part of Mr. Sheedy the sending him there, is what finally ripened into the conspiracy that took the life of John Sheedy."

Colonel Philpott objected to any reference to a conspiracy, as the counts charging conspiracy had been stricken out, but the court said that he would not only not forbid reference to a conspiracy, but that in his final instructions he would probably rule directly the opposite to the line asked by defense.

Mr. Snell then concluded:

"The evidence in this case will show to you that John Sheedy was a man some fifty odd years of age; that his wife, the defendant, was much younger, some thirty-five or thereabouts; that she had been married twice before she met Mr. Sheedy, and that she had lived with him as his mistress for a year or more prior to their marriage. The evidence will further show to you that owing to the fact that Sheedy was a gambler, that their social friends were few. The evidence will also show to you that they had no children, and that there was nothing to unite the two together except their own compatibility. The state will not go into their domestic relations prior to July of last year, but sometime in July of that year Mrs. Sheedy went to Buffalo, N. Y., for medical treatment, and there she met a young man some twenty-eight years of age by the name of A. H. Walstrom, and when Mrs. Sheedy returned home she brought with her a photograph of this young man. The evidence will also show to you that when she returned to Lincoln Mr. Sheedy did not meet her at the train, and of this she complained very bitterly, and she said at the time, that is after her return from Buffalo, that Sheedy was mean to her, that he treated her badly that he was crazy and that he threatened her life; that he carried a revolver and she was afraid of him, and that she was afraid he was going to shoot her. The evidence will also show to you that at that time she said to one of her neighbors that she was going to leave John Sheedy, and one afternoon she did go to this neighboring house and say that she had left John Sheedy. Now bear in mind the evidence will show that this, her leaving John Sheedy and all of this, took place when Walstrom, this young man that she had met in Buffalo, was in the city. The evidence will show to you that Walstrom's coming to this state was not chance. She had told several different persons in this town that Walstrom would be here, the only conclusion being that she had made arrangements with him when they were in Buffalo that he would come here, or they had carried on a secret and surreptitious correspondence in this manner. She had spoken to a young man by the name of John Klausner, who will be a witness in this case, and told him that when Walstrom did come here that she wanted him, that is Klausner, to room with this young man Walstrom, and so when Walstrom did come to this city he went over to the Windsor hotel, where this young man Klausner was at work, sought him out and the two went together down here to a building known as the Heater block and there they picked out a room and roomed together. The evidence will show to you that this Mr. Walstrom paid all of the room rent except about $1. It will also show to you that this young man carried notes back and forth between Mrs. Sheedy and this young man Walstrom. The prosecution does not know the contents of these notes. It will also show to you that Mrs. Sheedy sent down there to that room little [?] for this young man Walstrom to eat, wines and cakes and kick knacks and the likes. And the evidence will show to you that while this young man was here Mrs. Sheedy gave him presents, she was also seen with him at different times, and when this young man would call over at a neighbors Mrs. Sheedy would come over there. The evidence will also show to you that after Mr. Sheedy was shot at, sometime prior to this assault, that Mrs. Sheedy and remarked that the people could not say Harry did it, because Harry was at work that night. The evidence will also show to you that the very night that John Sheedy was assaulted and lay there upon his bed of pain, that Mrs. Sheedy sent word by Charlie Carpenter to this young man Walstrom that John Sheedy had been struck over the head by some one. The evidence will also show to you that after John Sheedy was dead she sent another messenger to this young man Walstrom, and told him as he valued her friendship he must be present at John Sheedy's funeral. We believe on the part of the state that we can convince you and show to you that Mrs. Sheedy was tired of her husband; that she had become infatuated with this young man; that she had determined to get rid of John Sheedy, get his property and enjoy it with her new found lover. Monday McFarland was the agent she chose to employ to assassinate her husband. She gave him money and promised him more to incite his cupidity; allowed him the pleasures of her body in order to get his confidence and get him into her possession and to inflame his courage, and she with the nerve of Lady Macbeth would finish with the drug what had been begun with the club, if the blow that Monday gave him was not sufficient to cause his death. Now, if poison was administered to Mr. Sheedy, who administered it? The evidence will show you that no one, so far as the state is aware, gave Mr. Sheedy anything except the doctors and herself, and all the medicine that the doctor gave him was the sulfonal, ten grains at two doses, which I mentioned in the first part of my statement to you. The dose that she gave him in the coffee--bear in mind the evidence will show you that immediately after that he passed into a stupor, commamose condition, from which he never recovered-- and Mrs. Sheedy, while her husband was sinking, going to his long rest, remarked to different persons who were about the room that the doctors were giving him something; that the blow would not have caused his death. This is very brief as an outline of what we believe the evidence will show you. We believe that the evidence will show you that John Sheedy was murdered, and that the defendants in this case murdered him. And if we show this to you beyond a reasonable doubt, we believe that it will be your duty as conscientious men and as upright jurors to return a verdict in accordance with such convictions, be the consequences and the penalty what they may.

(Continued page 4th.)

-------------------------------

Knob Hill.

The electric line is to be built at once along Fourteenth street to the prison; cars propelled by electricity are to make fifteen minute trips from 6 a. m. until midnight; any part of the city for 5 cents. The most elevated and slightly lots about the city and at the same time the most reasonable. No railroad tracks to cross; no noise nor smoke; no objectionable features. Call at my office and talk with me.
J. C. MCBRIDE,
Room 8, City Block.
18tf

--------------------------

For Rent.

One-half of a pleasantly located office in Burr block, ground floor, at able rate. Address 120 North Twelfth street.