Early News

The Union & Advertiser
February 29, 1896

Gone to the Jury

CHATFIELD Trial Ended This Afternoon
Mr. WARREN Concluded His Address Soon after 3 O'Clock
Judge DAVY's Address to the Jury and His Opinion of the A. P. A. Association

     This is the last day of the trial of Egbert H. CHATFIELD, who killed Dominick KEARNS on May 26th last. Assistant District Attorney Stephen J. WARREN, who began his address to the jury yesterday afternoon took up this morning in concluding his remarks. Justice John M. DAVY delivers his charge this afternoon and the jury then retires. There is a general expectation that a verdict will be reached this evening.
     The issue for the jury is whether or not the homicide is justified by the plea of self-defense. If the jury should find adverse to the defense the verdict although the charge of murder in the first degree, may be of either murder or manslaughter in any of the degrees.
    It was 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon when Mr. RAINES finished his impassioned plea for CHATFIELD. The boy's mother and sister and a number of other women in the court room were in tears as the eloquent attorney brought his fervent appeal to a close and among the sobbing women, although moved in a different way perhaps, was Little Mrs. KEARNS, the widow of Dominick. Mr. RAINES closed his peroration as follows:
     "There is a law higher than the statuce law - a law which, antedates the forming of legislation, and that is a law which allows a man to protect himself. It would be a sorry day if this lad, set upon by a desperate gang, should be deprived of the protection of the law and at a juncture when he was brought face to face with these opposing forces, it would be a sad thing if he could not protect himself. But it would be a sadder thing to send out to all the gangs that infest the city the news that self-respecting citizens are at their mercy.
     "Stand fast, gentlemen, and send this boy forth, saying: 'you did the best you knew.'"

Assistant District Attorney WARREN, in his closing address for the people, resented in vigorous terms charges made against the district attorney's office by Mr. RAINES, and in refuting the charge that the "SLATTERY gang had a pull" with the office, pointed out that he himself had twice tried and convicted Michael SLATTERY, and has once secured the conviction of Patrick SLATTERY within a few years, the ____ having served his term and the former being now under a heavy sentence.
     Mr. WARREN charged that the defense had concocted every particle of its evidence since the coroner's inquest and the grand jury proceedings.
     A dramatic incident was when Mr. WARREN to disprove the statements of the defense as to KEARNS being an unusually large man put on the coat which KEARNS wore when he was shot. Mr. WARREN is not a heavily built man and he defied anybody to find a wrinkle in the coat. The sleeves were, if anything, a Little too short.
     "Look at it, "said Mr. WARREN. "Does it fit me? I never had a better fitting coat made to order. Does that look like the coat of this giant that has been pictured to you?"
     Mr. WARREN said if he had seemed too zealous in his conduct of the case it was because he had to be zealous to bring out the truth notwithstanding the tricks and eloquence of the man who is admitted to be the shrewdest, sharpest and ablest criminal lawyer in the state. He emphasized that he had exercised the greatest care in securing a jury of men intelligent and fearless enough to do the duty. Counsel denounced CHATFIELD as a leading spirit in the "A. P. A. gang which hangs out at OAKLEY's and at BISNET's."

    Counsel reviewed the testimony of employers, foremen and relatives as to KEARNS have been an industrious, peaceable man. He then said:
     "I ask you to visit a Little house on Cottage street and then ask yourself if that is the home of a brute. Yet the counsel for the defense had the audacity to question the widow regarding her home life with the man for whom she now grieves. Does she show signs of brutal treatment at his or at the hands of anyone? It is not my custom to characterize the witnesses, but when the defense brings forth such an array of drunkards, thieves and toughs as were here sworn, I deem it my duty to call your attention to their reputation in the neighborhood in which they reside, and compare them with Dominick KEARNS.
     Mr. WARREN's address was suspended at 6 o'clock and court took a recess to 9:30 o'clock this morning.

At 9:30 o'clock this morning Mr. WARREN resumed his address. He argued that it was impossible that KEARNS should be an associate of the SLATTERYs for years, should have been engaged in numerous bloodthirsty fights on the streets of Rochester, and yet never a scratch be entered against him upon the criminal records of the city or county. "We have produced before you a policeman living near by, a detective who was lieutenant of police in charge of that part of the city for years, and other reputable citizens who have told you that they never heard of Dominick KEARNS doing aught against his fellow men. Will you believe these reputable men or the horde headed by OAKLEY and BISNET, who have tried to defame and stamp down the man in his grave?"
     Taking up the subject of CHATFIELD's character counsel said he had been pictured by Mr. RAINES as a gentle, retiring boy, nurtured in the Genesee's zephyrs, unsophisticated, growing up a weakling with a weak back, weak wrists and weak eyes. The Little church has been mentioned, but it does not appear that the defendant ever went to it. "But is that the real picture?" said the attorney. "Oh, no! Spread the canvas anew and see what is really the character of this defendant."
     Mr. WARREN reviewed the testimony as to the old accidents to CHATFIELD and his weakness, arguing that the testimony of various witnesses was contradictory, indicating falsehoods and was inconsistent with the facts as to a man able after the accidents to do all kinds of carpentering work, digging stumps, and working in an ice house.

"Was CHATFIELD an associate of Pat and Mike SLATTERY? He has been shown to have been in their society. Was he brought up on the hills or was he nurtured in the slums of the city? I do not pass beyond his own testimony on that point. He said he was in the habit of going to Front street. You heard him tell of going through the saloons with Pat SLATTERY. You heard this weakling tell of indulging in pretty high kicking. And you heard him tell of going to the saloons there with other men.
     "You have learned that he frequented the saloons at the Rapids. He says he was never intoxicated in his life. I say an inference is to be drawn from the drinking that he did, according to the testimony and on the day of this tragedy he is proved to have drank no less than six glasses of beer."
     Counsel related how CHATFIELD clinched with Pat SLATTERY, holding him fast. "This puny weakling was able to hold a prize fighter. This is the infant who stood in fear, in trembling before KEARNS. You remember how CHATFIELD struck Mike SLATTERY and the gang called to the weakling to '___ him.'"

Referring to the FITZ HARRIS Saloon incident, counsel said: "You saw FITZ HARRIS on the stand, a powerful man. When he stepped forward to stop HOFFMAN from striking O'NEIL and CHATFIELD cried 'Step back, don't' interfere,' do you believe that FITZ HARRIS obeyed this verbal invitation without being afraid of a weapon? On, no, such men as FITZ HARRIS do not draw back simply because a Little threat is made. Was it not because he knew that CHATFIELD was a dangerous man and unless he obeyed a hole would probably be made in his body? That was the reason FITZ HARRIS went behind the bar to get a bottle."
     Mr. WARREN said in SCHALBERT's saloon the evidence showed that CHATFIELD struck the powerful Drew, himself a fighter, in the jaw, a blow like that which he struck Mike SLATTERY, knocking Drew suddenly to the floor and then kicking him. "Then it was that CHATFIELD's friends rushed him to a back room. You saw these witnesses and their appearance indicated their honesty. The blood of Drew stained the floor the next day as you remember. That is the man whose character you are considering today."
     "On the Sabbath morning of this tragedy where was this defendant? In the saloons of Front and Water streets, as he has told you, going into the toughest saloons of this city, associating with the lowest characters. Where was KEARNS? At work on the Charlotte sewer under the observation, control and charge of Engineer BROWN, as you heard Mr. BROWN say on the stand.
     "Leaving Front street that morning, CHATFIELD went to the saloon of his old friend, instructor, protector - BISNET; the man who never went to church in his life, the man upon whose beauteous features you have gazed. That is the character of CHATFIELD and his associates."
     Counsel took up the incident described by the witness Charles CURRY, where CHATFIELD is alleged to have gone up and down BISNET's saloon ten minutes with a revolver in his had, saying he was not afraid of any game constable and was as good a man as there was at the Rapids. "If there ever was an honest witness," said counsel, "it was CURRY whom we had to seek out at his Dansville home and bring here to testify. He had no interest in the case and we must believe him in preference to CHATFIELD or BISNET. This man with the bravado air and the revolver," said the counsel, "this man who handled successively Pat and Mike SLATTERY, who knocked down Drew and kicked him in the face, is not the defendant's true character?"
     Speaking of the incident at the railroad crossing Mr. WARREN said: "Was CHATFIELD afraid, trembling with fear? Not at all. We have it from his own lips. When the officer burst upon the party and asked what was the matter CHATFIELD told you that he said 'nothing much.' He did not say that the SLATTERY's were waylaying him; that he wanted protection. He held his ground and it will be an important element in this case that he did not retreat."

     The witness ROWE was denounced by Mr. WARREN as one of the worst scoundrels in the county, and said in view of the complete impeachment by his fellow citizens of Brockport no credence whatever could be placed upon his testimony that KEARNS made threats on the night of the tragedy.
     Mr. WARREN said that according to the testimony of Johnny CURVIN as well as John STEWART said CHATFIELD held a revolver as he stood at the bar in the CURVIN saloon before KEARNS called him a name and counsel said CHATFIELD's conduct in displaying the revolver was such as to call for a name.
     Mr. RAINES here interrupted the address and said John CURVIN did not testify to CHATFIELD displaying a revolver while standing at the bar.
     Mr. WARREN said that CURVIN did so testify as the stenographer's minutes would show.
     The court said the jurors would doubtless remember and Mr. WARREN proceeding said: "The defense claims that this defendant was entrapped into this saloon in order to do him. I assert that it was his overbearing conduct when he entered the saloon in drawing a revolver and saying he belonged to the A. P. A. that provoked the quarrel. When he tapped on the table with his revolver would it not have been a coward who would have done anything other than what KEARNS did when he said 'I will ram it down your throat?'
     "We have it from the lips of the defendant that he wanted to get out the door and that was the reason he wanted to get over to the side of the table near the door. He did get over there as he went around the table and he didn't go out, although he had a chance. I say there can be no self-defense when he shot instead of going out when he could do so.

Mr. WARREN dwelt on the differences between the testimony of MATHIAS before the grand jury and at this trial, arguing that since the grand jury proceedings the defense had concocted a new theory of the doings around the table so as to fit the theory of self-defense. The attorney closely analyzed the testimony of this witness and others as to the position of CHATFIELD and KEARNS just before the bullet was fired. He ridiculed CHATFIELD's assertion as to not knowing that he cocked the revolver and saying it might have been cocked by the act of drawing it out of his pocket. Counsel clicked the revolver repeatedly and said it required a very distinct pressure to cock it and to fire/ that it was not one of the easy firing kind of revolvers. "He knew when he cocked it and also when he fired it," said the attorney.
     The anatomical testimony was analyzed. "Every theory of this defense," said Mr. WARREN, "that KEARNS arm was raised at the time of the shooting, has been combated and proved to be false. If his arm were raised the hole in the muscle would be lower than the hole in the chest in the relaxed body. The Course of the bullet was the contrary. It corroborates the testimony of the people's witnesses.
     "They say after the men went around the table a few times KEARNS said: 'You dasn't shoot,' and CHATFIELD, replying 'Dasn't I?' pulls the trigger and the bullet pierces the heart of Dominick KEARNS. Does not that conduct accord with CHATFIELD's character as you saw it revealed on the witness stand?
     "CURVIN, the young man brought up with CHATFIELD, was a most reluctant witness on our side and yet he had to tell these facts. He tells you KEARNS was a foot and a half from one side of the table and CHATFIELD the same distance from the other side. Culligan, another friend of CHATFIELD, was reluctantly obliged to tell the same thing.
     "Now, as to the knife. The defendant doesn't say he saw it, so he was not afraid. MATHIAS alone saw it. Four reputable witnesses say there was no knife. They also tell you that he didn't say, 'I'll cut your heart out.' There was no knife and no such remark.

"When MATHIAS tells you that after the shot was fired KEARNS clasped his hands to his breast he stamped the lie on this theory of the defense.
If KEARNS made a plunge with a knife in his hand where did the knife go when he threw his hands to his breast? He had no knife. He said 'I am shot all right. It is too bad. Was it not a cowardly act.'
     "Dominick KEARNS, when he made that remark, stamped the lie on the theory of the defense. Was that the remark of a coward? Would a man ready to plunge a knife into the vitals of another stamp anybody as a coward? Oh, no, gentlemen, KEARNS was not the coward in that room."
     At 12:30 o'clock Mr. WARREN suspended his address, court taking a recess to 2 o'clock.

     In closing Mr. WARREN said, "If CHATFIELD were in danger why didn't the cry out to his friends who surrounded him? The CURVINs and Culligans, his friends, sat there and never moved. What was CHATFIELD's appearance? He was mad. There was no fear, remorse nor sorrow and there hasn't been any since.
     "That he went out to call the patrol showed his consciousness of crime. He couldn't escape for too many saw him."
Counsel argued that the carrying of the loaded revolver and the other circumstances indicated premeditation and he asked for a verdict of murder in the first degree.

Judge DAVY in his address to the jury said:

     "Gentlemen of the jury - I congratulate you that this protracted and important trial is so near a close. You have listened with commendable patience to the evidence and arguments of counsel upon both sides. It now remains for me to state to you the law applicable to the facts in this case, and then with you rests the responsibility of determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
     "The indictment in this case charges the highest degree of homicide known to the law, that is, murder in the first degree. It is alleged that the defendant on the 26th of May, 1895, killed Dominick KEARNS. While the defendant does not deny that he killed KEARNS, he contends, However, that the killing was justifiable, or excusable, and upon those points hinge the important questions which you are to consider and determine."
     The judge then spoke at length on the rules of evidence and the law regarding murder. "Before you can convict the defendant of murder in the first degree," he said, "you must be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that, without justifiable cause and with deliberation and premeditation, he killed the deceased; that the shot was fired with a deliberate design to effect his death."
     Of the second degree he said: "In order to constitute murder in the second degree it is necessary, under the statue, that there should be at the ___ne of the firing of the shot in int____ kill.

The judge defined manslaughter in its various degrees.
     "Now, gentlemen of the jury, "_____ said, "the defense in this case is substantially two-fold. First, that the defendant at the time of the alleged homicide acted in self defense. Second, that the defendant discharged the revolver accidentally. The right of self-defense, which by nature is ingrafted in every human heart, is recognized under the laws of this State under certain circumstances.
     "If you should find from the evidence that the deceased followed the defendant up in a threatening manner, still the defendant had no right to shoot him unless the circumstances were such as to lead a reasonable person to believe that such killing was necessary in self-defense to protect his life or to prevent receiving great bodily injury.
     "The character of the deceased is a proper matter for your consideration, and you should give it such weight as you think proper in determining whether or not his acts at the time he was killed, gave the defendant reasonable cause to apprehend such danger as to justify the act of shooting on the ground of self-defense.
     "To justify the act the defendant must have acted under an honest belief that it was necessary at the time to take the life of the deceased in order to save his own or to prevent the deceased from doing him great bodily harm; and it must appear that there was reasonable cause to excite this apprehension on his part so that if you find that the deceased at the time he was killed did nothing to excite in the mind of the defendant the fear that the deceased was about to execute his threats, then the threats and bad character of the deceased, whatever you may find them to have been, are unavailing and did not justify the defendant in taking his life."

Regarding the A. P. A. the judge said:
     "It is to be regretted that the question whether the defendant was a member of the organization known as the A. P. A. or whether the deceased was a Catholic should have arisen in this case, but it could not be avoided. What the object of the A. P. A. organization is does not fully appear from the evidence. If it's object is to injure the Roman Catholics and to prevent them from obtaining employment or being elected to any political ___ then it is to be regretted ___ such an organization exists in our community, because it is _____ to create prejudices and animosity between Catholics and Protestants ___ ___ naturally culminate, sooner or later, deeds of violence. Such an organization tends to create and keep alive the religious and political divisions of the worst character such as existed centuries ago in the old world. The constitution of the United States protects every citizen in the freedom of his religious opinions and the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience where he be Jew or Gentile, Catholic or Protestant. No society or organization can long exist in this country who principal object is to deprive Catholics or Jews or members of any other religious denominations from obtaining employment or from exercising the full enjoyment of their religious and political liberties. There is no law, However, that prevents individuals from forming such an organization, neither was it unlawful for the defendant to join it, and no individual had any right to interfere with him in the peaceful enjoyment of the principles of the organization. The fact that the defendant was a member of the A. P. A. Association may have prejudiced and angered KEARNS against him, but this fact did not justify KEARNS in threatening the life of the defendant or even committing an assault upon him.
     "Now, gentlemen, the right of this society to exist under our laws is one thing. And the propriety and wisdom of its organization and existence is another thing, the fact However that the defendant was a member of the organization and that the deceased, KEARNS, was a Catholic ought not to prejudice or influence your verdict one way or the other.

The case was then given to the jury. S