IT IS A DIRE FAILURE
End of the Prosecution's Side of the Borden Case
An Unfortunate Objection
The Commonwealth Attorneys Determined Exclude Evidence Regarding
the Lunatic With Bloody Clothes and an Axe - Virtually the End
New Bedford, Mass., June 15 - The trial of Lizzie BORDEN for her life is practically ended. It may not be formally closed until Monday, or it may come to a verdict on Saturday, but as far as the back bone of it goes, it came to an end when the wizard lawyer, ROBINSON, flung the government's tales about poison out of the window and cut off the case of the prosecution before it had developed substance.
In New York her lawyers would have asked the court to throw the whole case out of court on top of the discredited poison testimony, but the practice is different here. Ex-Governor ROBINSON said to the correspondent that such a dramatic course is not approved in criminal trials and would not be regarded as prudent. To take the chance and then have the court hold that there was sufficient evidence to go before the jury, would magnify the importance of the commonwealth's evidence in the minds of the jury.
The case is ended, because the only story to be unfolded was that of the government, which has now been told. The defense has nothing of importance to be put forward. The theory of the prisoner's lawyers is that they do not know who committed the murders, and that the commonwealth has not brought out a scintilla of evidence that their client did it.
The case has ended in a burst of sunshine for the imprisoned woman. Then, in the police stations of Fall River, whence the hosts of witnesses came to court to tell stories that were as uniform as the clothes they wear, it is admitted that whatever the case the government had has been generally weakened. What was left of suspicious circumstances against her is now to be attacked by her lawyers, and already in one afternoon great gaps and holes were made in it. A peddler was put on the stand to testify that he saw a woman coming from the barn to the BORDEN house at the very time the prisoner claims to have made the journey, and two boys were sworn to give evidence that they were in the loft of the barn before the arrival of the police officer who testified to visiting the loft and finding none of Miss BORDEN'S foot prints in the thick dust that covered the floor.
At the end of the day counsel for the defense attempted to introduce a sensational circumstance, but the commonwealth's lawyers fought it tooth and nail, and the judges are now considering whether to let it in or not. It is the story of a French-Canadian woodchopper living at Step Brook on the edge of the Fall River. He saw a lunatic with an axe in the woods. The man was all bloody and kept saying "Poor Mrs. BORDEN," "Poor Mrs. BORDEN." This was on the day after the murder.
To-day Lizzie BORDEN's friends came to the front and her side of the case had its first hearing. Instantly her demeanor underwent a change. The new current of testimony and eloquence on her behalf set in strongly and she was lifted up like a parched plant after a shower. She came in with a great bouquet of flowers of many kinds among which white and pale colors predominated.
The prisoner sat in her customary listless way, examining her fan, and looking into her lap, while the government testimony went on, and the district attorney was in command. It was when the court flung out the prussic acid testimony that she began to change her demeanor. She sat up straight and firm. She opened wide her big brown eyes, picked up her bouquet, and smelled it, and put its blossoms in better order. A rosy flush came over her face and her eyes sparkled. On other days, her lawyers used to have the rouse her when they thought to distract her attention from the court proceedings. Now it is she, who insisted on their hearing her, and her talk was sprightly and gay, and punctured with smiles and ripples of laughter that she silenced in her handkerchief. She was overcome and wept, when her old friend, and the leader among her lawyers, arose and talked of her home life, and her yet unspotted good name, in opening the case on her behalf. He was eloquent, but he was still more earnest, and his belief in her innocence shown in his words like a loving light in a loving forest. For an hour he championed her case with an ancient knight's consideration for her sex and herself. It must have been a strange sensation to that girl, to hear for the first time in ten months of agony, a bold and defiant voice ringing out in her defense. She wiped her eyes, furtively a few times, but the tears came so fast she had to put up her handkerchief. Her face being hidden, she yielded to nature and had her second good cry before the public.
Mr. JENNINGS called the attention of the jury to the singular haste of the government in selecting this woman as the one person subject to suspicion. From the very outset they believed her guilty, and from that moment tried to prove her so. Yet she is one of the daughters of the old man who was murdered. That man was her father, whom she tenderly loved, and in regard to whom the government has not even ???ted that he was not the subject of her tender regard, for thirty-two years, up to that morning, she had led a spotless life, and for twenty-one years had moved in and out of that old house in happy relations with him and with her sister. Mr. JENNINGS adopted the low, measured fu?eral tone of voice, with its subdued tone and touch of melancholy, which is the stereotyped voice of all who speak at this trial. Mr. JENNINGS put a little shading of triumph in his voice when he summed up the commonwealth's failures.
"They have not produced a scintilla of direct evidence against Lizzie
BORDEN," said he. "Not a weapon, not a spot of blood, not a thing
has been traced directly to her. They have not had her hand touch it, her eye
see it, or ear hear it."
After that the witnesses for the defense were hurried along, each with his
or her little story, all circumstantial, like the bulk of what was brought out
by the government in this case of clouds and fog and hypothesis.
________________
A THING OF TATTERS
The Prosecution Rests Without Attaching Suspicion to Miss Borden
New Bedford, June 15 - The tenth day of the BORDEN murder trial opened hot, with a big crowd in attendance. Miss BORDEN was overwhelmed with floral offerings this morning, and appeared in excellent spirits, despite the seeming disheartening significance of yesterday's proceedings the defense is vigorously contesting every point of the government's testimony of the prisoner's attempt to purchase prussic acid. Preliminary evidence is being introduced under objections and exceptions. Charles H. LAWTON, a druggist, testified that he knew of no other than medicinal purposes for which prussic acid was used, and Daniel HATHAWAY said it was suitable for cleaning furs and very volatile, while Dr. DOLAN said its vapor was very poisonous.
When Dr. DOLAN left the stand the jury we??, retired to their room, and counsel and justices engaged in a whispered consultation lasting ten minutes, when the jury was brought in and the court stated that further delay asked for by the government could not be granted. Mr. KNOWLTON then stated that he would offer the testimony of Eli BENCE, but the court ruled that further testimony from him would not be allowed.
District Attorney KNOWLTON then formally offered all the articles produced at the hearing thus far in evidence, including pla??, pictures, skulls, dresses, hatchets, etc., and here the commonwealth rested its case.
Another consultation began between counsel and the court at the conclusion of which Governor ROBINSON asked for ten minutes in which to arrange matters for the opening of the defense, it being understood that the prosecution would take up more time than it had to-day. During the wait Mrs. FESSENDEN, of Boston, came to where Lizzie was sitting and had five minutes' talk with her, Lizzie greeting her warmly.
At 10:50 o'clock the jury filed into their places again. Counsel for the
defense were all ready to begin the presentation of their side of the case,
and Mr. JENNINGS became their spokesman. He said:
One of the victims of this murder was a personal friend of mine and I had
known him since a boy, and if I become more affected than would seem natural,
it must be ascribed to this feeling; a lawyer does not cease ever to be a man.
The brutal character of the wounds were only equaled by the time and place of
the murders. I do not propose to go into detail about the character of those
wounds, but know what they were. The person who was arrested for doing the deed
was the youngest daughter of one of the victims.
"Up to that time she was of spotless character and reputation, and had moved in and out of that house for twenty- one years with her father and mother and sister. We shall show you that this young woman had led a spotless life; interested in religious and charitable work, and yet for some reason the government seemed to have fastened the crime upon her. There is always an outcry for some one to be punished for such a crime, but we want the guilty punished, not the innocent."
"Our law, and it is the one which you have sworn to apply to this case, presumes every man to be innocent until he is proven guilty. The law is for the protection of the living. The law of Massachusetts to-day draws about the person of everybody the circle of innocent until the contrary is proven. I say this is a mysterious case, and every thinking man must say the same. You are not here to say how it was committed, but to say by whom. You are simply to answer as to this defendant, to say you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty or innocent, and a reasonable doubt is a doubt for which you can furnish a good reason. There are two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial, the first is the testimony of persons who have seen and heard and felt; circumstantial evidence is entirely different. I want to say there is not one particle of direct evidence against Lizzie Andrew BORDEN to connect her with this crime; it is wholly and absolutely circumstantial. We know, of course, that almost everything occurs under natural law. In circumstantial evidence it is simply an opinion from you; an inference on your part; in certain cases such evidence may be as sure as direct, but there is no class of evidence known that under certain circumstances is as dangerous as evidence of this nature.
"To illustrate, a man is shot. There is no evidence to connect anyone with murder; but in taking out the ball a piece of paper comes with it as part of the wadding; it is a piece of a song, and in the pocket of a man arrested for the murder is found the rest of the paper containing the song and both pieces fit. This is strong circumstantial evidence. Take the case of the man who was pardoned out of a new Jersey prison last August, after seven years incarceration; he had been convicted of manslaughter because a piece of his coat was found near the murdered person; the suspected man said he found the man dead, and got some blood on a portion of his coat. He tore the piece off, left it and fled. He was not believed, and after seven years' imprisonment the real murderer confessed on his dying bed. Here are two illustrations.
"It is not for you to unravel the mystery of how these people died, but to say whether this woman did the deed or not. Circumstantial evidence has often been likened to a chain, and every essential fact is that chain must be proven by a reasonable assumption; there must be no weal links. Unless by the evidence you can tie this woman to the bodies of the murdered persons you must let her go free. We contend that with the evidence thus far produced there is no motive shows for this woman to do the deed.
"But it may be said it is not necessary to prove a motive; one of the persons killed was this girl's own father, and while a motive may be assumed by the government you will find that a motive as one of the links in the chain becomes of tremendous importance. The government's chain that whoever killed one killed the other and where they have assumed to show a motive for the killing of her stepmother there is none of the killing of her own father. In measuring the motive you have got to apply it in this case as between this girl and her own father. The blood which was shown on the axes has disappeared; the clawheaded hatchet has disappeared from the case, and it didn't disappear until after Professor WOOD had said ?? that, to the defense, most glorious morning in Fall River, that there could not have been blood on it to be washed so quickly. The attempt has been made here to surround this house, to completely shut it in, but you have seen it and have heard the evidence on that matter. And there has not been a living soul in all these witnesses to testify that he saw Andrew J. BORDEN go down to the bank from this house; he was actually invisible. We shall show you there were others about that house; we shall show you that people were in that barn and all over it before MEDLEY went there; we shall show you that Lizzie was in the barn just as she said she was. We shall show you that this dress was soiled with paint, gotten on early in May; that it was burned there in broad daylight with windows and doors open, officers and other witnesses about. We shall show you that she had on the very dress she says she had on, the one I gave to the officer myself. We shall ask you to see, in view of the presumption of innocence which the law says you shall consider, that no blood was found upon her dress, and to consider the relations between father and daughter."
After distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence and illustrating the dangerous character of circumstantial evidence, he said every link in the government's chain of evidence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, including motive weapon, exclusive opportunity and intent. The defense will show the relations between father and daughter which excluded motive for killing him, and the motive to kill the mother alone would not be enough for the government claimed that the same person killed both. He claimed that the weapon had not been connected with the defendant.
Exclusive opportunity would be negative by showing that other people were around at the time of the murder; that others entered the barn before the officer who testified that its floor was covered with dust, and that the burned dress was covered with paint and was not worn on the day of the murder. Mr. JENNINGS closed his address at 11:30 o'clock.
The prisoner sat with her face buried in her handkerchief during counsel's
plea.
The first witness called for the defense was Martha CHAGNON, who said:
"I live on Third street and am Dr. CHAGNON'S daughter. Our yard is at
the rear of the BORDEN yard; there is a fence between the two yards, and there
is a corner there where there is a dog house (picture shown.) It is the same
house. On the night preceding the murder I heard a noise which disturbed me;
it was about 11 o'clock at night.
Q - "Describe it."
A - "I cannot; I did not see it."
Q - "You don't often see noise, do you?"
A - No but well, this was a kind of a pounding noise along the lines of the
BORDEN fence, and it continued four or five minutes. Witness was not allowed
to state the effect upon her consequent upon hearing the noise, and said she
did nothing to find out what the cause of the noise was. Continuing she said,
"I was in the sitting room on the south side of the house; there was the
dining room between me and where the noise appeared to be. The dog house is
located to the west; we had no horse at that time in the barn. My stepmother
was present when the noise was made but I don't remember that she looked into
the nature and cause of the noise. There is a piazza at the southeast corner
of the house. The noise seemed to be pounding on the boards. There was no way
for me to see out; it was too dark and the curtains were down. On the day of
the murder I went away at 9 A. M.
Cross examined: "I was away all the day of the murder, in Providence. My stepmother, Marion CHAGNON, was in the room with me that night. There is a piazza from that room and one of the windows opens out on it; there are three windows in the room, two facing the South, the other the east. I thought the sound came from the BORDEN fence, from that direction; I made no examination to see whence the sound came; for all I know it might have come from further south; there is an ice house near there but the sound was not in that direction. It did not seem to be there. I don't think it could have come from the ice house. I don't remember of having said so at the previous hearing (although the notes said that she did.)
Witness remembered that she had said so before, but was not satisfied it
came from the house.
Re-cross: There was a dog on the piazza, but he didn't leave it.
Marion CHAGNON, wife of Dr. CHAGNON, testified:
"I was at home the evening before the murder, and heard a noise about
11 o'clock; it was a noise like the step on the sidewalk or the fence; the noise
seemed to come from the direction of the dog house."
The testimony of this witness did not differ from that of the previous witness relative to the noise in the yard. She said there was ash barrel in the barn; not in the direction of the sound, however, and when one day her husband rapped on it, she said it sounded like the same noise heard that night but it was not in the same direction.
John GEARD, Fall River, painter testified:
"I painted the house of Andrew J. BORDEN in May, 1892. I took the paint
there March 9th; I saw Miss BORDEN the next morning early; she was in the backyard,
near the barn; the color was not satisfactory, so I made it to suit her. She
was about where the paint was; the paint tubs were near the south door; we commenced
painting the house with a dark drab color. The paint was carried there the afternoon
previous, but her father said she would select the color and I waited for her
to come home.
Cross-examined: "I directed all the mixing."
Mary DURFEE, Fall River, was sworn and said:
"I knew the BORDENS and was familiar with the premises. I remember seeing
a man talking with Mr. BORDEN on his steps some time before the murder; it was
before the Thanksgiving previous (here Mr. KNOWLTON objected to the evidence,
the time being too remote, and effort was made to fix the time nearer something
definite, but the best witness could do was to put it at not more than two months
previous to October 27, 1891.) The evidence was excluded.
Charles N. GIFFORD, clothing store clerk:
Lives near the house of Dr. CHAGNON. He said he was at his house about 11
o'clock the morning of the murder.
"I saw a man on the side steps leading into the yard; the side steps
of my house, I mean. He weighed about 180 or 190 pounds; he sat on the steps
with his hat on his face; I shook him and his hat fell on the walk; I lit a
match and found I didn't know him; I left him and went into the house. There
was no smell of liquor about the man. I have never seen the man since. Afterward
Mr. KIRBY came home, in a few minutes, and I heard something said by Mrs. KIRBY."
Cross-examined: "There is a gate at the head of the steps."
Urah KIRBY, Fall River, said:
"I remember the night before the murder when I went home at 11 o'clock
I found a man sitting on my steps. I spoke to him but got no reply. His hat
was pulled down over his eyes and I put my hand on top of his hat. I detected
no sign of liquor about the man. Those steps were near the driveway of the yard."
Mark CHASE, Fall River, hostler, formerly a policeman said:
"My place of business is at a barn on Second street, opposite Dr. KELLY'S
house. I was at the barn on the morning of the murder. About 11 o'clock I saw
a carriage, standing by a tree near the BORDEN house; there was a man inside
the carriage; I never saw the man or the carriage before; this was shortly before
11 o'clock or 10:50 o'clock."
Recess was taken until 2:15 o'clock.
After recess Mark CHASE resumed: "at the time of the murder I lived
across the street from my stable."
Cross-examined by Mr. KNOWLTON:
"I was standing near the corner of Spring street, south of the BORDEN
house. It was about 10:50 o'clock when I first saw it; I can't tell how long
it had been there. I walked right along and went to a watch store, further up,
next to KIRBY'S; didn't look at the team after I crossed the street. It was
heading north; the team was below the KELLEY house, near a tree which is nearly
on the boundary of the KELLEY and BORDEN places. I think the tree is seven feet
below the boundary of the KELLEY place; I don't know whether the horse was hitched
or not; the man might have been somebody I knew, but as I saw him I didn't recognize
him. There was nothing to indicate that it was not a caller on the doctor.
Dr. Benjamin H. HANDY, Fall River, said: "I know where the BORDEN house is; I went by there on the morning of the murder at 9 and 10:30 o'clock; I saw a medium sized young man, very pale in complexion, with his eyes fixed on the sidewalk, passing slowly towards the south; he was acting strangely; in consequence of his appearance I turned in my carriage to watch him as he went by; I have a faint idea that I had seen him before. It was not Thomas BOLLES; he used to work for me; it wasn't he. This man was well dressed in a light suit of clothes. I have tried to find him since, but have been unable to do so; I have never seen him since.
Cross-examined: I first saw him between 10:30 and 10:40 o'clock; he was not hurrying; he was acting different from any person I ever saw on the street in my life. He was agitated and seemed to be weak. He half stopped and walked on; he seemed to be mentally agitated, judging by the intensely agitated expression on his face. I think I had seen him before, some other day; there was nobody else on the sidewalk then; I did not see Mr. CUNEEN. I know the defendant; I have a cottage at Marion, but I had not seen her there last summer.
Delia MANLEY, Fall River, certified: "I live on Second street and am
familiar with the premises about the BORDEN house. I passed by the BORDEN house
on the morning of the murder; about 9:40 o'clock I saw a man standing in the
north gate dressed in light clothes. He was a young man; I did not look at him
sufficiently to describe his features; it wasn't Mr. BORDEN nor Mr. MORSE; it
wasn't anybody I ever saw before; he was standing looking at us; we stopped
to look at some pond lilies and he seemed to be listening to what we were saying;
I am sure it was the BORDEN gateway.
Cross-examined: "The man was standing where anybody could see him who
was out there. I notices nothing about his appearance except that I saw him
standing there.
Jerome C. BORDEN, lumber dealer, Fall River: "I am a relative of the
defendant. I went to the house on the next day after the murder about 2 o'clock
in the afternoon. I opened the front door without any help and went in; it was
shut as lose as it could be when I went there."
Witness was not allowed to state whether there was any surprise at his coming
in the front door.
Walter P. STEVENS, Fall River: "I was a reporter for the Daily News at the time of the murder and I went up there that morning; I first heard of the trouble in the morning, but can't tell the exact time. I went up with Officer MULLALAY. There were several persons there then. I think I went in the side gate, went about the yard, and went in the house very soon MEDLEY was in the house when I was there; when I came out he was in the house; then I went into the barn; Mr. FLEET was not there; heard somebody going up stairs in the barn; this was but a few moments after I saw MEDLEY in the house; I heard at least three persons go up stairs."
Cross-examined: "I cannot give you any approximation of what time I
got there; I saw MEDLEY first in the entry of the house going into the kitchen;
where he had been before that, I don't know; I don't know when he went into
the barn, but I know he was not one of the three. When I was looking out the
yard I saw that the grass was trampled down. (Witness described minutely his
proceedings in the yard.)
"I tried to open the cellar door; It was fastened; when I left the place
I went to the Union bank; was there a few minutes, then went to talbot &
Co's and when I came out the clock on the city hall struck 12 o'clock.
Alfred CLARKSON, engineer testified: "I got to the BORDEN house at 11:30 o'clock. I went into the barn in seven or eight minutes after I got there; I looked around in the barn; there were three men up there when I got there; I know officers MEDLEY and FLEET, but they were not there when I got there. I went into the barn before Mr. FLEET got there. I was standing at the north gate when he came in. I didn't see Mr. MEDLEY there. Deputy Sheriff WIXON went on the stairs in the barn with me; he didn't go on to the floor with me; the first time I saw him he was looking about the back fences. I was at the place six minutes before I went into the barn. I think I saw Mr. STEVENS before I got into the barn; I stayed in the barn seven or eight minutes.
Simon ROBINSKI, ice-cream dealer, Fall River, said: "I remember the
time of the BORDEN murder. I know now where the house is, but I didn't know
then. I kept my team in Second street. It is opposite the BORDEN house. I went
by there in my wagon that morning; it was 3 minutes after 11 o'clock when I
left the stable; when I was going by I saw a lady coming from the barn; she
had on a dark colored dress and nothing on her head; she was walking very slow
towards the house. I was on my wagon at the time. I had seen the servant a few
weeks before and had sold her ice-cram; this was not the servant."
Cross-examined, witness detailed his movements after he passed the BORDEN
house; he went down street and got his cream; went about peddling his cream;
he put up his horse for dinner about 1:30 o'clock; he looked at the clock only
once that he remembered and that was when he left the stable. Here District
Attorney KNOWLTON made a heroic effort to tangle up the witness, who spoke English
somewhat imperfectly, but the result was negative.
Charles G. GARDNER said: "The ice-cream man put his teams up at my stable. I remember the BORDEN murder; ROBINSKI took his team out five or ten minutes after 11 o'clock; when he came in his horse was eating and I told him to wait. I afterwards went down Second street with a Worcester man; went to the bank to change a bill; made two or three calls and then I drove him to the train at 11:30 o'clock; ROBINSKI went out ten minutes before I did; when we were turning the corner of Second street on Pleasant street I saw Mr. MANNING running up the street; I never looked toward the BORDEN house although I had been told there had been a row somewhere on the street; I didn't know anything about the trouble at the BORDEN house; it may have been 11:15 o'clock, but I don't think it was more than 11:10 o'clock; there were three teams went out before he did; George DOUGLAS was one of them; I always feed at 11 o'clock promptly, and his horse had been feeding when he came in, but I don't know whether he had finished or not."
Charles B. NEWHALL, Worcester, hardware drummer, said: "I was at GARDNER'S
stable on August 4th, arriving in town at 10:25 o'clock; GARDNER came for me
and drove me to his stable; while there I did some business with a man in the
stable, but I don't know who he was; Mr. GARNER took me down to the bank to
get a bill changed; then went to other places and Mr. GARDNER drove me to the
New Bedford station for the 11:50 o'clock train; while we were driving back
from the city turning the corner of Second and Pleasant street my attention
was called to Mr. MANNING.
No cross-examination.
Everett BROWN said: "I live at No. 117 Third street, Fall River. I was
at the BORDEN house on the day of the murder; I went down with others, but I
didn't know what the time was when I got there, but I was told to leave the
house at 11 o'clock. When I went down Second street I saw Officer DOHERTY coming
out of the front gate. I went into the yard and went to the side door, but Mr.
SAWYER wouldn't let us in. I didn't see MEDLEY there; after SAWYER turned us
away, we went to the barn two of us; we stood at the foot of the barn stairs
and talked about going up the stairs; he wouldn't go up first, because he said
somebody might drop an ax on him; then we went up, Thomas C. BARLOW and I, and
looked around the yard. Then FLEET came and we went out of the yard; we were
put out."
Cross-examined: "I might have seen Mr. MORSE there but I didn't know
him then, and I did not take notice. I don't know what time it was; don't remember
of seeing MEDLEY there and he might have been there."
Thomas C. BARLOW said: "I live at No. 10 Lyons street. I was on the
BORDEN place the day of the murder. I went to Everett BROWN'S house at 11 o'clock;
staying there eight minutes and then went down the street to the BORDENS; when
we went in we saw DOHERTY coming out. We could not get into the house and both
of us went into the barn. It was cool up there to what it was out doors. We
went back to the house after we left the barn and tried to look in the windows;
I saw Officer FLEET when he went into the house; soon after we were put out
of the yard, and we stayed until 5 o'clock; got supper, came back and stayed
there until midnight."
Cross-examined: "I live at my grandmother's and work for SHANNON in
his pool room; I set up the balls and clear up; I was not working this day and
I had dinner early; I am in the habit of coming home days for my dinner at about
this time. When I was in the barn loft it was cooler; it was a nice, comfortable,
cool place. Nobody told me to say this, and the only one I have talked with
about the business is Mr. JENNINGS; when we went to the barn we found the door
fastened; all the place we went up was in that barn loft."
Joseph LEMAY, Fall River; "I live in the north part of the city about four miles from city hall; I own a farm there of fifty-six acres; there are woods on both sides of the farm." (Here the court ordered the witness down and dismissed the jury, it being described that some words were necessary in regard to the admissibility of the evidence).
Mr. KNOWLTON, in arguing the question, said the matter upon which this evidence would touch had no relation to the case, and had nothing to do with it; so far as the time was concerned. The testimony sought to be introduced was that witness had seen a man passing along the road near his farm, his clothes covered with blood and presenting a decidedly repulsive appearance.
Mr. JENNINGS said that this was not a case of conversation, and that neither was aware of the presence of the other; the man seen by the witness had a hatchet in his hand which might have been the one used in doing the murders. He claimed that though the evidence he much or little it should be submitted to the jury.
Decision was reserved until to-morrow morning.
The court adjourned until 9 o'clock to-morrow.
****
STRUCK BY A TRAIN
James Gallagher, From Chili, Badly Hurt Near the York Street Crossing
George PETERS spent all last night wondering how a man not on the track can
be struck by a train. Up to midnight he was thinking the matter over in the
City Hospital, where he was waiting while an operation was being performed on
James GALLAGHER, with whom he was walking out at 7 o'clock last night near the
York street railroad crossing, just before a train came along. The men boarded
at Love's boarding house in Chili, and were employed in a brick yard there.
Mr. PETERS wanted to have a tooth pulled, and he asked GALLAGHER to come into
the city with him to a dentist's.
The men were returning to their boarding house, and were walking between
two of the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg tracks. They heard the train coming
behind them, and PETERS said, "Here comes the train."
GALLAGHER answered, "All right, let her come."
An instant later PETERS found himself lying beside the track while the train
was going out of sight in the distance. He got on his feet, and picked up his
hat, which was lying ten feet in front of him, and then noticing that his companion
was very quiet he called to him. GALLAGHER made no reply, and when PETERS turned
around he found him lying on his back between the tracks, unconscious. Two young
men were coming up the track at the time, and PETERS ran to them and told them
of what had occurred. GALLAGHER was picked up and the ambulance was called.
He was taken to the City Hospital, where it was found that the man's right arm
was broken, and his skull was fractured.
Mr. PETERS was unable to explain last night just how the accident occurred.
He said that he himself was so far from the track that it would have been impossible
for the train to have struck him, and that he was also several feet from GALLAGHER.
The only explanation he could give as to how he came to be knocked down was
that GALLAGHER was thrown against him. GALLAGHER was walking, he thought, about
two feet from the track the train was on.
At the City Hospital it was stated that the condition of the injured man
was very serious. GALLAGHER is 28 years old, and has been in this vicinity but
a short time.
****
The Schaffner Inquest
Chicago, June 15 - An inquest was held to-day on the body of Herman SCHAFFNER, the banker, whose body was found in the lake yesterday, and a verdict rendered by the coroner's jury to the effect that the deceased came to his death by drowning in Lake Michigan, whether by suicide or not is unknown. The funeral of the dead banker, which was very largely attended, took place this afternoon.
****
An Aluminum Shell
Albany, June 15 - Frank G. APPLEY, of the Pawtucket Boat Club and also of the Providence Journal staff, arrived in this city to-day en route for the World's fair, via the Erie canal and the great lakes. He is sculling his way in an aluminum shell, built similarly to the ordinary racing shell and weighing but twenty-eight pounds.
****
Fell From a Street Car
An Italian named Jacob MARCETTO, hailing from New York city, alighted somewhat hastily from an electric car at the corner of State and Brown streets at a little after 6 o'clock last evening, and, the car being in motion at the time, he slipped and fell, striking the back of his head on the pavement. He was picked up by James JOHNSON, and when taken into the drug store on the corner was found to be quite seriously hurt. Blood was flowing from his ears and nose and he was unconscious. The ambulance was called and MARCETTO was taken to St. Mary's Hospital. Where late last night he was reported to be in quite a serious condition. He received a severe wound on his head.
****
DEATHS AND FUNERALS
-John VERSPRELLE died last Wednesday evening at the family residence, No. 28 Vose street, aged seventy-six years. Notice of the funeral will be found in the proper column.
****
POLICE COURT
Rochester, N. Y., June 15, 1893****
MARRIED
HOFFMAN - MARTLIN - At Buffalo, N. Y., Tuesday, June 13, 1893, at the residence of the bride's parents, 296 Connecticut street, Frank A. HOFFMAN and Clara MARTLIN
****
DIED
HASKIN - In this city, Wednesday evening, June 13, 1893, at the residence
of her daughter, Mrs. J. H. BARKER, Mary L. HASKIN, aged 81 years.
-Funeral at the residence, No. 7 Garson avenue, this (Friday) afternoon at
2:30. Burial will be private.
GALUSHA - In this city, June 14th, 1893, Almira GALUSHA, widow of Martin
GALUSHA, aged 96 years.
-Funeral from the residence of John VAN VOORHIS, 256 East Ave., this (Friday)
afternoon at 3 o'clock.
VERSPRELLE - In this city, Wednesday evening, June 14, 1893, at the family
residence No. 28 Vose street, John VERSPRELLE, aged 76 years.
-The funeral will be held from the house Friday afternoon at four o'clock.
Friends invited.
__