Advance Argus

Greenville, May 5, 1898

View more excerpts from the Advance Argus

Excerpts from the Advance Argus, Greenville, Mercer County, PA, May 5, 1898, pages 1 and 6

AT THE COUNTY SEAT

-----

Hugh Sewell Goes Free for the Murder of Ray Fry.

-----

DONE IN SELF-DEFENSE.

MERCER, April 28—At the opening of court, Wednesday morning, W. H. Fry was recalled by the Commonwealth. In reply to questions asked by counsel, Mr. Fry said several bruises were upon Ray’s [Ray Fry's] face and head after the killing. With this the Commonwealth rested and the case for the defense was opened by Mr. Pettit, who outlined that defense would be that the affair was concocted by [Frank]  Deets and [Martin] Tunison to get [Hugh] Sewell and [Ray] Fry at Tunison’s house that evening to see a fight between them; that all four took a hand in the fight, Deets cutting Sewell’s throat; that Sewell is incapable of learning and has been the brunt of all jokes from childhood, but always peaceable; that witnesses of prosecution testified differently at other hearings than at this trial. 

W. T. Stewart, of THE EVENING RECORD, Greenville, was first called by the defense in order that he might get to Greenville to take the train with the N. O. P., of which he is a member. Stewart testified that Mart Tunison said at the hearing that Fry was on top in the scuffle. Stewart was now excused and wished 'godspeed" by the court. 

Wayne Burns, of West Salem, testified that he works some for W. H. Fry, and the day before this occurrence he was working in the woods with Ray Fry and on the day of this occurrence he and Ray were working together in a field, when Deets came. Ray told Deets that he would not stand under the story which Sewell had told about Adda [Deets], and he was going to chastise him for saying it, and wanted Deets to see Sewell. Deets said Hugh [Sewell] would be at Tunison’s that night. 

John Logan, who had testified for the prosecution, was called by the defense and sad that immediately after this fight Mart Tunison came to his house, telling him that Hugh Sewell had stabbed Ray Fry, and then cut his own throat and both were dead. Logan asked what they fought about and Mart [Tunison] said that Deets brought Fry there to settle the remark made about Adda Deets by Sewell. Tunison said some time after wards that he wished he had locked up his house that night and had come to Logan’s, and then this thing would not, have happened, and again told him the way to settle thus thing now was for Mr. Fry to arrest both Sewell and Deets. 

On Christmas night Logan said, Tunison was at his house when Hugh [Sewell] came and knocked, Tunison pulled a revolver out and threatened to shoot through the door at Sewell, Logan cautioned Sewell about Tunison about having this revolver and his threat to shoot him. Sewell and Mart [Tunison] went home from here together.  

Frank Deets was recalled to testify what he told Dr. Cossitt when he called him on the night of the quarrel in order to contradict this by testimony of Dr. Cossitt. 

Dr. Cossitt being put on the stand now said when Deets came to his office he  said he did not know how Fry happened to have been cut. As the doctor wished to go home he was now examined as to the extent of Sewell’s injuries. He said Sewell had two cuts on the front of his neck very close together and about three inches in length. That when he saw Sewell the latter was conscious and complaining of his chest. The doctor was examined very thoroughly concerning Sewell’s condition after the fight, whether there were any bruises on his chest or back; also as Sewell complained of kidney trouble, if there were any external appearances of causes which might have started this trouble, Dr. Brown, in answer to questions, said that Mart Tunison testified at the coroner's inquest that Fry had Sewell down in the fight. Drs. Brown and Cossitt were now excused from further attendance.

Prof. W. A. Smith, of Bellvue, who had taught at the Porter school when Sewell attended said that Sewell had no studies but he tried to teach him to read a little, spell some and something in numbers. It was objected by the prosecution that it was incompetent for the defense to prove obliquity by showing stupidity in school. The objection was overruled and testimony admitted to show whether or not a person with the capacity of Sewell would be led to think his life was in danger in such circumstances as are in this case and then protect himself. 

Prof. Smith said Sewell’s efforts in learning were good but the only words he knew or seemed capable of being taught to recognize were such as, “is,” “are,” etc., and could not read a sentence if more than three words. Hugh [Sewell] was in the number class with boys of six years; he could not concentrate his mind on anything but was anything but quarrelsome. 

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Court convened at 2 p. m., when the defendant, Hugh Sewell, was put on the Stand. 

Sewell said his occupation was a section hand. On the day before the murder he had beep working at Fry’s and in the evening he and Ray went to Logan’s, a neighbor, and spent the evening. They went home together. There was no trouble of any kind between them, and they were the best of friends. On the next day Sewell worked until 6 o’clock, went home, ate his supper and soon after went up to Martin Tunison’s. He sat there talking to Tunison for some time, when Deets and Fry came in. Fry walked up to the defendant and struck him in the face, making his nose bleed. Deets also struck him; and he remembers of Mart Tunison kicking him. Witness said he did not remember much more except that he tried to get out at the north door, but found it barred by Deets, who held it shut. He remembers of going home and falling into the doorway, but not much more. 

He said he had lost his knife some time before this and did not have a knife at all at the time of the murder. Sewell testified further that when Fry wrestled with him Fry would always throw him and was generally stronger. Sewell said he knew of Tunison carrying a revolver. 

In the fight at Tunison’s house the defendant said Tunison and Deets joined in and fought just as much as he and Fry. He was badly scared, thinking they would kill him (Sewell.) 

In cross examination the defendant was asked as to the subject matter of the conversation between him and Tunison but could get no answer except that they talked about the Cuban war, which was all he could remember, before Deets and Fry came in. He repeated his former statement of Fry’s coming and striking him. He did not strike anyone. Fry, Deets and Tunison were all on him and be was trying to get away. He did not know whether or not he was down on the floor. 

In answer to the question, “Did you not say when Ray Fry dropped dead, ‘I will die with him.’ ?“ He said, “No sir I did not.” 

In answer to the questions as to his admissions, to other persons, of killing Fry, Sewell would invariably answer, “I do not remember;” or “It was so long ago,” or “I do not know.” 

Dr. R. M. Hope, the jail physician of Mercer county, was called. The doctor discussed the wound on Sewell’s throat after he was brought to jail, as Hope had attended him every day for several weeks. 

A hypothetical question was asked the witness: “Doctor, suppose this man was engaged in a fight in a room within closed doors and with a man whom he knew to be his physical superior, could he determine in the excitement of the moment the legal responsibilities of the acts he might commit?”

This was objected to by the prosecution, because Dr. Hope was not experienced in such cases; because if he was experienced in mental diseases he could not determine what act the defendant might do eight years ago at school, and for the further reason that in deciding a question of this kind the Dr. Hope would be usurping the province of the jury in presuming to decide a question of fact, The objection was sustained and the question overruled. Dr. Hope now testified that he had charge of the insane of this county for one year and a half and had the experience in mental diseases of the regular physician. In reply to questions about Sewell he said that Sewell made remarks showing lack of common sense, and when complaining of ailments, if told that they would be all right the next day, Sewell would be satisfied. Sewell always acted like a child and his mind could not be kept on any subject. He seemed never to realize the gravity of his act, and would say that he might as well be home, as he could get a job. 

The doctor was asked what the operation of the mind of the defendant would likely be in his opinion formed from the knowledge he has of the defendant professionally and also from the defendant’s testimony on the stand, which he heard in full. 

This question was objected to by the prosecution, but was admitted with a slight change of form and the reply of witness was, that he thought Sewell would act on the spur of the moment and be so frightened that reason would not enter into his mind at all; this he explained, that if Sewell were asked now if it were wrong to kill a friend he would say, yes, no doubt, but as he is simple-minded and has so little control over what he has that he, in those circumstances, or under great excitement, would lose all reason whatever. 

In cross-examination, conducted by Mr. Richmond, the doctor said his opinion was formed from his attendance bf Sewell, who was mentally weak, not diseased, not insane, but simple-minded. The doctor thinks his weakness is from birth. 

R. W. Logan, a resident of the Sewell neighborhood; testified that the evening before this occurrence Sewell and Fry, were both at his house. They were apparently friendly towards each other and left together. 

Rod. Foley, a section man, who has worked with Sewell, testified that he saw Sewell’s knife and traded another with him for it, but could not recognize a knife shown to him as absolutely the one, so was excused. 

‘Squire Loutzenhiser, Greenville, the justice of the peace before whom the hearing was held, testified that Martin Tunison said at the hearing that Sewell was under Fry in the fight. 

Susie Sewell, the defendant’s sister, was called and said she was at home that evening and saw Martin Tunison the same evening on the railroad track and heard him talking to her mother and heard her mother say, “All right I’ll tell Hugh." 

Mrs. Jane Sewell, the mother of Hugh, was now put on the stand. She testified that she has eleven children. On the evening of the murder, she saw Mart Tunison on the railroad track about six o’clock. Tunison asked her to tell Hugh to come to his house that night; that she told him at the supper table and in a few minutes Hugh left. In about half an hour he came back with his nose bleeding and his throat cut. 

On Mrs. Sewell’s being asked by the prosecution if she was not on bad terms with the Frys, she broke out in tears and was excused from the stand.

Jacob Loutzenhizer was called and he testified that he and C.C. Ford talked together about the murder and Ford said when he was at Sewell’s after the affair Hugh did not say anything; this was to contradict what Ford testified to on the stand. 

John Loutzenhiser testified to the same thing. 

William Porter said Sewell’s reputation in the neighborhood for peace and good order was good. 

James Loutzenhiser, T. F. Bean, John Canon, John Collins, Love Cannon, Joseph Nelson, C. H. Melvin, William Wheaton, J. H. Loutzenhiser, W. J. Gehring, James A. Melvin, J. T Loutzenhiser, James Porter, Henry Stoyer, Alfred Loutzenhiser were all called to testify to the good reputation of the defendant for peace and good order in his neighborhood. All of these men had either known or worked with Sewell. 

At the opening of the morning session, Julia Sewell, a sister of the defendant, was put on the stand. The witness testified that Tunison came to their home some time before this trouble, and had two butcher knives with him to cut up a hog for them. She further testified as to the size of the pocket knife of Hugh [Sewell], that it was one with a blade 2 1/2 inches in length. 

Cole Sewell, the father, was now called and also said Tunison was at his house to cut up some meat for them, and that Tunison had two butcher knives with him, and that he had also seen them at Tunison’s house.  

Mrs. Sewell was recalled by the defense and testified the same concerning Tunison’s two butcher knives. This witness also testified that Tunison frequently came to her home exhibiting his revolver many times.

Several knives of Martin Tunison, one being one of the butcher knives testified to by these witnesses, were offered in evidence, also a plot of the neighborhood was explained to the jury by Mr. Gillespie and offered in evidence. 

Hugh Sewell was asked to be put on the stand again, as the prosecution wished to ask him a few, questions to show that he was able to run an engine and do other skilled labor, for the purpose of showing him mentally capable of doing this crime; but he seemed decidedly ignorant on all questions. 

The defense now rested and the rebuttal of the prosecution was commenced.

Charles Loutzenhiser was the first witness called in rebuttal. It was explained to the jury by the court that no substantiate facts could now be proved by the Commonwealth, but this witness and others called in rebuttal could only testify so as to effect the credibility of defendant’s witnesses. The witness was asked if the defendant did not tell him about Fry having a knife and about knives lying around the room some place, to which he replied, in the negative. 

John Loutzenhiser was also asked about these same things but said that Sewell said he had killed Ray Fry, with Martin Tunison’s butcher knife. In cross-examination the witness said that at this time Hugh Sewell looked weak and exhausted. 

C. C. Ford wanted to take the stand and make a correction in his testimony saving that he did recollect that he said to Jacob and John Loutzenhiser that when he went to Sewell's after the fight Hugh did not say anything to him. 

Charles Melvin was called to testify as to Sewell doing work which took some skill but knew nothing. 

‘Squire Loutzenhiser was called to testify as to paying Sewell bounty for mink hides and that he did this business the same as others. 

Mrs. Margaret A. Bortz said Sewell was frequently at her house playing pedro with the boys and spending the evening, and that to her he seemed to play the same as the others and was able to cheat at any rate. 

L. A. Bortz also saw him play pedro with the boys and Hugh would bid and play his own hand. 

W. H. Fry was called to effect the credibility of the defendant as a witness saying he had seen him doing a duty as a “track walker.” The witness further said that Sewell had told him he “walked track.” 

Constable Leech, of Greenville, said that while Sewell was in his custody he told him that he bad killed Ray Fry with Tunison’s butcher knife. This was objected to by the defense but admitted as a rebuttal. Here the case of the Commonwealth was completed. 

‘Squire Loutzenhiser now testified to several mink skin reports to which he had signed Sewell’s name and Sewell had made his mark. This was done by Mr. Gillespie to go to show Sewell’s mentality. The witness said he also assisted the defendant to sign his name to these reports. 

Before making the arguments to the jury the counsel for the defense claimed that the Commonwealth should make their argument in chief, then the counsel for the defense make his argument, after which the Commonwealth could only reply to new matter introduced by the defense. The Commonwealth maintained that they should only state their legal points first, then came the argu­ment for the defendant, after which the Commonwealth dosed with its argument. The court ruled that the practice here was for the Commonwealth to open with their legal arguments, then the defense, then closing with the argument of the Commonwealth. 

At the afternoon session twenty or more legal points were submitted by the prosecution to be ruled upon by the court. These were thoroughly discussed by the attorneys, after which the argument of the defense to the jury was made by Mr. Pettit. Mr. Pettit very thoroughly and logically discoursed to the jury on the facts of the case, occupy­ing nearly two hours. Many persons had assembled in the court room to hear the conclusion of this case. Mr. A. B. Richmond will plead the cause of the Commonwealth in the morning. 

MERCER, April 30—The jury in the Sewell murder case brought in their verdict this morning, and at 8:35 it was read in court. 

The jury finds that the wound which caused Ray Fry’s death was inflicted by Hugh Sewell, but that he inflicted it when be thought his life was in peril. 

The verdict allows Sewell to go free, without any imprisonment or fine, and he leaves for Greenville today. 

At the opening of court yesterday Mr. Gillespie addressed the jury. As Mr. Pettit Thursday afternoon had addressed the jury presenting and comparing the testimony so very thorough­ly Mr. Gillespie argued more on favorable points for the jury to consider in regard to the testimony such as Sewell’s mentality, his responsibility, the circumstance in relation to the defendant and how one of his light would probably act under such circumstances. Mr. Gillespie occupied about two hours making a most learned and eloquent plea which was listened to with rapt attention by a court room full of people. 

The argument for the Commonwealth was presented by Mr. Richmond, who occupied the remainder of the morning session and nearly an hour and a half of the afternoon session. Mr. Richmond made a very impassionate plea for the conviction. He quoted largely from the case of the Commonwealth vs. Dunn, a case which was tried in Washington county, before Judge Agnew, a  member of the supreme bench, and a landmark in criminal law.  

The court’s charge was an eminently learned and fair one. All but one of the defendant’s twenty-two legal points submitted to the court to be passed upon were decided affirmatively. The jury was much enlightened on the law, the distinction between murder of the first and second degree and voluntary manslaughter. They were also instructed that in the opinion of the court the evidence would not warrant a conviction of murder of the first degree but that despite this opinion of the court they might find such a verdict if they thought such a one was warranted. They were instructed not to swerve from their duty on account of the consequences of any verdict which they might find. 

The testimony was reviewed and also the defenses set up by the prisoner which were, first: That he did not inflict the fatal wound, and second: That if the jury found from the testimony that he did, that it was done in self-defense. They were instructed in regard to these defenses, what would entitle the defense to an acquittal and the Commonwealth to a Conviction.  

In concluding the Court said, ‘Starting with the presumption of innocence, gentlemen of the jury, the questions for you to decide are, first: Is the defendant guilty? second, Did he commit the deed maliciously but with the intention to take life? third, Is he guilty of voluntary manslaughter ?” Giving them a final reminder that with the result of the verdict they had nothing to do, they were sent to the jury room at 5 p. m The verdict is awaited with much interest and anxiety. At the present writing the jury is still out.