Cortland Standard Semi-Weekly Edition, Friday,
June 7, 1895.
HELD FOR
GRAND JURY.
MCDONALD AS THE PRINCIPAL, CLARK AS
ACCOMPLICE.
End of
the Testimony in the Quinlan Murder
Case—In the Custody of the Sheriff.
At 3:15
Monday afternoon Attorney John Courtney, Jr., took the floor in summing up for
The People the evidence given in the examination of Jack McDonald, charged with
the murder of Patrick Quinlan. His address was delivered in that eloquent and impressive
manner so characteristic of Mr. Courtney, touching nearly all the principal points
of evidence given by the numerous witnesses. His remarks were continued until
4:30 when a quarter of an hour was taken by the attorneys and district attorney
in consultation.
At 4:45
the case of The People vs. Louis Clark was called. Clark was arrested on a
charge similar to that of McDonald, as being one of the murderers of Patrick
Quinlan. Twenty-six depositions made before Justice Dorr C. Smith previous to
issuing warrants for the arrest of McDonald and Clark were read to defendant
Clark after which District Attorney Burlingame motioned that the testimony
given Saturday in the examination of McDonald by Louis Clark wherein defendant
admitted, that he was in company with McDonald continuously from 7 or 8 o’clock
in the evening of Dec. 21 until the next morning, be taken as evidence in this
examination. This being objected to by
defendant’s attorney, N. L. Miller, the attorneys for the prosecution called Sheriff
Hilsinger to the witness chair. He testified that he knew defendant Louis
Clark. Heard him make a statement Saturday concerning his whereabouts on the
evening of Dec. 21 and morning of Dec 22.
At 6:15
the examination was adjourned to 9 o’clock Tuesday morning.
TUESDAY MORNING.
At 10 o’clock Tuesday morning Sheriff Hilsinger
resumed the witness chair. Said the statement he heard Clark make Saturday
concerning his whereabouts was made in his evidence on the examination of
McDonald. He heard Clark say that on the evening of Friday, Dec, 21, 1894, from
6 or 7 o’clock and until the morning of Dec. 22, he was with McDonald all the
time. That statement made by Clark was reduced to writing by the court in his presence
and afterward read to and subscribed to by the witness. At this point the
statement made by Clark Saturday
as to his whereabouts was received and read as evidence. Also the cross
examinations of witnesses sworn on behalf of The People in the examination of
McDonald.
Plaintiffs rest, and court instructs
defendant as to his right to make a statement as provided in Section 196 Code
of Criminal Procedure. Defendant waived such right. Defendant’s attorney then
offered in evidence the balance of the direct testimony given by Clark
on the examination of McDonald.
Plaintiffs then offered the evidence given
in the cross-examination of Clark on the examination of McDonald.
Defendant offered in evidence the direct
testimony given by the witnesses produced by the defendant in the case of The
People vs. McDonald, to wit, the direct testimony of Elbert Salisbury, Darius
Ripley and Morris Sullivan.
The People then offered in evidence the
cross-examinations of the above named witnesses. Defendant rests. Plaintiffs
offered in evidence the second deposition of Darius Ripley taken in the
examination of McDonald, explaining his first or former deposition taken in the
same case.
EVIDENCE CLOSED.
Defendant’s attorney moved that defendant be
discharged on the ground that there is not sufficient evidence and in fact, no
evidence at all to warrant this court to hold him to appear before the grand
jury. Some little time was then taken by the attorneys for defendant and
plaintiffs in calling Justice Smith’s attention to points of evidence and sections
of the code. Justice Smith then said it was not, unfortunately, his duty to
judge between the testimony of the different witnesses, on a question of fact,
but as to whether a crime had been committed and whether there was a
possibility that the defendants were concerned in that crime. He said that
according to the evidence produced there was not the slightest doubt in his
mind that a murder had been committed, and that the depositions taken before
him at this examination and before the warrants were issued plainly showed
there was sufficient cause to believe the defendants guilty of the crime
charged. That it was his painful duty to hold the defendant, McDonald, as a
principal, under the charges specified in the warrant issued for his arrest, to
await the action of the grand jury. His decision as to Defendant Clark, though
perhaps not quite so severe, is none the less binding, as he is held to await
the action of the same higher tribunal under Section 216 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows:
Sec. 216. When the magistrate is
satisfied by proof on oath that there is reason to believe that a witness is an
accomplice in the commission of the crime charged he may order the witness to
enter into a written undertaking with such sureties and in such sum as he may
deem proper for his appearance.
At the close of the examination the two
prisoners were remanded to the custody of the sheriff. It was clear that
McDonald could not be admitted to bail, but a question was raised as to the possibility
of admitting Clark to bail. Authorities were cited on both sides. An
adjournment was then taken to 4 o’clock this afternoon at Justice Smith’s
office when that magistrate is expected to decide the question.
It may be stated right here that the numerous
depositions which were taken prior to the issuing of the warrants for the
arrest of the two men and which were read to the defendants in the course of
the examination for the purpose of permitting them to produce witnesses for
cross examination upon the subject matter of the depositions, have not been
published and these perhaps furnished some of the strongest evidence which led
to the holding of the defendants.
HOWARD NOT GUILTY.
FAYETTE
COLE HAS A SINGULAR LAPSE OF MEMORY.
Didn’t
Know Whether His Affidavit Was True—Speedy Verdict According to the
Evidence.
The case of The People vs. John Howard was
tried before Justice Bull and a jury at police court Tuesday morning. The
charge was of selling liquor unlawfully. I. H. Palmer appeared for The People
and James Dougherty for Mr. Howard. At a previous time the defendant had
demanded a trial by jury and the jury which was drawn and accepted consisted of
Charles Fish, Newton Cone, William Bell, G. J. Mager, William Martin and A. B.
Frazier.
The defendant was arrested on the strength
of an affidavit made by Fayette Cole of South Cortland on May 16, 1895, before
Police Justice Bull, in which the deponent swore to the fact that on May 6 he
bought two glasses of whiskey of Howard and paid ten cents a glass for them.
The case was briefly opened by Attorney Palmer
and then Cole was called to the stand. He appeared to be a most unwilling
witness and was afflicted with most singular and unaccountable lapses of
memory. He said that he was 39 years old, was a farmer and lived in South
Cortland. On May 6 he thought he was in Howard’s place in Cortland. He couldn’t
tell whether he drank any thing there or not. He identified his signature and
remembered making the affidavit, but didn’t remember whether or not he drank
whiskey. He didn’t know that to fail to remember when on the witness stand what
he did remember is perjury. He didn’t remember who was with him that day.
Did you intend, asked Mr. Palmer, to state
the facts truly when you made the affidavit?
I suppose I did. The witness then added, I
couldn’t say positively whether or not at the time I intended to tell the truth.
Did you in that affidavit speak the facts
truly?
I don’t know.
Was it read over to you?
I think so, but am not sure.
Were your statements under oath taken down
by C. S. Bull, police justice, as you stated the facts to him and then did he
read the statement over to you, and then did you subscribe to it and swear to
it?
I think so.
Have you talked with the defendant since the
affidavit was drawn?
No.
Have you talked with any one about this
affidavit or about what transpired on May 6 at the defendant's place of
business?
I don’t remember that I have.
Do you remember that you have not?
I don’t remember anything about it.
What did you mean when you signed and
subscribed and swore to the statement contained in that affidavit that you
bought two glasses of whiskey of John H. Howard and paid for them ten cents a
glass?
I suppose I meant what it says.
Did you intend to speak the truth?
I did.
Was it true?
I don’t know.
Did you know at the time whether it was
true?
Not for certain.
Why?
Because I couldn’t remember.
Has anything occurred to you since to impair
your memory?
Nothing
that I know of.
Did you make that affidavit voluntarily?
No, sir.
Why not?
I was brought into court under subpoena for
the purpose of making it.
You made your statements voluntarily after
you were sworn?
Not exactly.
What do you mean by that?
I was told I must swear to the same things I
had sworn to in my previous affidavit.
Did you make a previous affidavit?
Yes.
When?
At the time I was here before.
Were you arrested for public intoxication on
May 6?
Yes.
Attorney Palmer here called for the record
of the police court on May 7, and introduced as evidence its records. Objection
was made to this by defendant’s attorney, but the objection was overruled. The records
stated that Fayette Cole was arrested May 6 by Officer Jackson for public
intoxication and was brought before Police Justice Bull on May 7, pleaded guilty
and was fined $3, which fine was paid. Witness agreed that the facts in the
record were all true.
Is there anything in the affidavit that isn’t
true?
I don’t know.
Why not?
Because I was intoxicated on May 6 and
couldn’t remember.
How does the fact of your being intoxicated on
May 6 affect your affidavit on May 15 when you were sober?
Because I made the affidavit according to the
statement I made May 7 when I was intoxicated.
Does the affidavit tend to refresh your
memory of events that occurred on May 6?
No.
Why not?
Because I don’t remember anything that
transpired that night.
On cross-examination by Attorney Dougherty
witness said he was at the depot on the night of May 6 and was thoroughly
intoxicated. He had an altercation with Mark Brownell who struck him over the
head with a poker and cut his head in two places. He was not wholly conscious
that night, was arrested and brought before Justice Bull who asked him if he
bought liquor of Howard. He replied that he had an impression that he did. Bull
then drew up a paper, which he signed on May 7. He didn’t know what kind of a paper
it was. He was subpoenaed again and came before Bull on May 15 and asked if he
got whiskey of Howard. He said he didn’t remember, but asked what he swore to
on May 7 and asked if he should swear to the same thing that he swore to then.
He told Bull it wouldn’t look well for him to swear to anything different from
that. He now couldn’t tell positively whether he got whiskey at Howard's or not.
On redirect examination Attorney Palmer
brought out the facts that the witness remembered how he came to Cortland, that
he remembered being at the depot, remembered being arrested and fined, but that
he couldn’t remember whether or not he was in Howard’s.
You were sober when you came to town?
Yes.
Well, the drunker you got, the better you
seem to remember. Isn’t this true?
This question was objected to, but the objection
was overruled and the answer was, I remember being intoxicated, but I don’t
remember when I got it or where I got it or how much I got.
Can you explain this lapse of memory?
No.
On cross-examination Attorney Dougherty
asked, when you made the affidavit you made it according to suggestions made by
Mr. Palmer or Mr. Bull?
Yes.
On the direct examination Mr. Palmer asked,
what suggestion did I make?
None.
What suggestion did Mr. Bull work?
He said I must swear as I did before, and so
I did.
This witness was then released and Attorney
Dougherty asked for the dismissal of the complaint and the discharge of the
prisoner from lack of evidence for conviction. Denied,
Attorney Dougherty then briefly opened the
case for the defense and called as a witness John H. Howard. Justice Bull
informed him that if he went on the stand he must suffer cross-examination the
same as though he were not the defendant.
Mr. Howard said that he had known Cole five
or six years, Saw him in his place about 8 o’clock on the night of May 6. He
was alone and stayed a half hour or so, He did not sell him anything and knew
that his bartender didn’t in his presence. He thought he was there all that
afternoon and evening. Cole was drunk and he was surprised to see him so, for
he never saw him so before. The witness declined to answer the question on
cross-examination whether or not he ever sold intoxicating liquors on the
ground that it would tend to incriminate himself.
Attorney Dougherty then renewed his motion
to dismiss the complaint and discharge the prisoner. Denied.
Both sides [summed up] and the case went to
the jury. In less than ten minutes they brought in a verdict of not guilty.
After discharging the jury Police Justice Bull
said he desired to say to the jury and counsel that either the witness Cole was
a victim of dementia or was a terrible perjurer for he never made any affidavit
to him on the morning of May 7 as he claimed. When arrested he freely and
voluntarily told where he got his liquor. He pleaded guilty, paid his fine and
was discharged, and that was all that was done about it that day. He then
decided to send for him to secure an affidavit. He had Chief Linderman and L.
A. Arnold scouring the country for several days to find him, and he had to
issue several subpoenas before he got him. When finally he did come he made the
statements without suggestions or without reference to any previous statements,
merely answering questions, which were then embodied in the form of a statement
which was read over to him and he then signed and swore to it.
Foreman Mager of the jury said to Justice
Bull that so far as the jury was concerned he thought they all understood the
case.
Van Buren-Monroe.
A pretty home wedding took place Wednesday
evening at half past 8 o‘clock, when Miss Cora May Monroe was united in
marriage with Mr. Hubert Van Buren, at the home of bride’s mother, Mrs. R. H .
Moon, 155 Tompkins-st. The ceremony which was performed by Rev. L. H. Pearce in
the presence of about thirty of the immediate friends and relatives of
the contracting parties, took place beneath an arch of evergreens entwined with
cut flowers. The rooms were tastily decorated throughout and presented a
pleasing appearance. Mr. Lancie Camp acted as best man and Miss May Miller as
bridesmaid. Misses Phene Van Buren and Eva Wheeler were flower girls and the
wedding march was played by Miss Ina Parmiter. Many beautiful and useful
presents were received and an elaborate wedding supper was served after the
ceremony.
Mr. and Mrs. Van Buren left for a short wedding
journey after which they will reside for a time with Mrs. Van Buren’s mother on
Tompkins-st.
Mr. Van Buren is a deservedly popular telegraph
operator and that night received congratulations from his friends all along the
line.
 |
| "SAM SLOAN." |
BREVITIES.
—A very
interesting feature of Mr. Perl Peckham’s barber shop is a real South American
prehensile tailed monkey eight months old. The tricks and antics of this one are
equal to those of any of his tribe.
—The iron front for the new Graham block on
Main-st. arrived Wednesday. The block is fast nearing completion.
—The Ithaca Electric Railroad Co. believes in
doing things in proper style. The Journal says the company has agreed to build
a stone waiting station on the campus near the Law Library, which shall comport
architecturally with the classic surroundings.
—The engine “Sam Sloan” on the D., L. & W.
R. R., which so long drew the vestibule train and which has of late been held
in reserve as an extra has been entirely rebuilt at the railroad shops at
Syracuse and has been put into regular service on the Oswego division. The new
engine is said to be very handsome.
Mentions.
Bloomer bicycle suits and sweaters at
Beaudry’s.
Baseball goods at Beaudry’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment