Cortland Semi-Weekly Standard, Tuesday, July 12, 1898.
THE DEFENDANT TAKES THE STAND IN HIS OWN BEHALF.
Tells the Story of the Events of the Fatal Night as He Remembers Them—Says that He Did Not Strike Lavan—Rebuttal Testimony Introduced.
THURSDAY AFTERNOON.
Court opened for the afternoon session at 2:02 P. M. More ladies were in attendance than gentlemen.
Testimony of Dr. Sornberger on cross-examination was continued. A man must fall in an extended condition to inflict the wound on the back of his head as described. A drunken man would not usually fall in extended position.
The witness testified as to the law of falling bodies. In answer to question he said that the difference in time between the striking of the head in falling over on the feet and falling from an equal height with the feet off the ground would be slight.
A blow with an instrument moving with equal force produces a less diffuse injury than the body or head coming in contact with it.
DR. KAUFMAN.
Dr. Kaufman was recalled and asked if a drunken man would fall over with enough force to kill him and replied “Yes.” A man under the influence of liquor has not the control of his muscles that a sober man has, his recovery comes too late.
DR. E. L. MOONEY.
Dr. Edward L. Mooney of Syracuse testified that he was educated at the University of Michigan, is a physician and surgeon of twelve years’ practice. As an expert he was asked if a man could fall in the manner before described and have it cause death and would he expect it. He replied he could, and thought that death would be probable. The witness then described what results would follow the inflictions of the wounds upon the head. In substance the testimony concerning unconsciousness, partial consciousness, and consciousness, also condition of reflex and spasmodic motions was the same as the preceding expert witnesses.
The effect of the continual use of liquor upon the brain was described. The blood vessels become dilated and the walls weakened. The walls lose their contractility.
Cross-examination: An intermittent use from three to twelve times a year of liquor might not show any appreciable difference. The system, if time is given, can throw off the effect produced. The continuous and excessive use of intoxicants would produce the deleterious effects before described. The effect of liquor upon a laboring man is less than that upon a man with sedentary life.
The important point of the prosecution was again brought out, that wounds on the back of the head produced by two points would be two holes, or if the head slid on the points, two parallel cuts. This is directly contrary to what was found, as the cuts were in a decided “V” shape.
Blows given and received, said the witness, by coming in contact with objects, as the result of spasmodic motion would be less severe than ordinary blows. The blow or shock which severs the blood vessels drives back the blood so that it would not bleed for a second or more and this may account for the reason that blood was not found on the block.
RAY W. WRIGHT.
The witness was the son of the proprietor of a grocery and drug store at Tully. He was a clerk in his father’s store and sold Galvin a quart and half a pint of whiskey at 50 cents a quart together with other groceries, and a load of wood was taken in payment. This transaction took place the day before the death of Lavan.
FRANK J. COLLIER.
Frank J. Collier was recalled. He has known Patrick Galvin and knows his character to have been good.
Cross-examination: The witness said that Dorothy told him that Galvin was quarrelsome when he had whiskey in the house. Fred Wood said that he was quarrelsome when under the influence of liquor.
ALBERT H. VAN HOESEN.
Albert H. Van Hoesen of Preble was called to the stand. He knew Patsey Galvin and according to the speech his character in the community was good.
Cross-examination: He had acted as Galvin’s agent since he was confined in jail. He never heard of anything bad about Galvin. He had seen him drunk.
EUGENE M. VAN HOESEN.
Witness has known Patrick Galvin for the last twenty years. As a merchant in Preble he had business transactions with the defendant. The reputation and general character of the defendant according to the speech of people in the community was good, but he had never heard any one speak of it.
MORRIS F. SPORE.
Lives in Preble and swore that according to the speech of people in the community Galvin’s reputation was good.
EBEN DAILY,
A magistrate of Preble, testified that he never heard anything against the general character of the defendant.
JOHN MILLER.
Testified as to the good character of the defendant.
On cross-examination, he has heard that Galvin was quarrelsome when under the influence of liquor from Jarvis.
JOHN W. ROE,
David Fox, Robert Bushby, Frank Daley, John Dobbins, J. D. F. Woolston, testified to the good reputation of the defendant.
THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF.
Patrick Galvin was called to the stand to testify in his own behalf. He was born in Ireland and came to this country thirty-five years ago with two brothers, a sister and mother. One brother died in the army. The other brother and mother are dead. His sister and he are the only ones living of his immediate family. Lavan was his neighbor and at his house on the night in question. He never struck Lavan with any instrument or his fist. The 25th of February, 1897, he bought whiskey at Tully. Lavan had stayed overnight with him once before. They were often together, visiting back and forth. Lavan rode back with him to his house on the 25th. On their arrival they had something to eat, they had some whiskey to drink out of a bottle and jug. The jug was put in the henhouse and hidden because he thought somebody might steal it. Lavan said he had a man over home who would do the chores and he thought he would stay all night. He had no recollection whether he locked the door or not. When he got up in the morning he kindled the fire and then he went out doors and found Lavan’s body lying to the west. He did not know or think he was dead when he found him. He hollered to him, but he did not reply. Then he went to him, took him up by the shoulders against him, dragged him into the hallway and laid him down for a minute on the floor, then he dragged him into the kitchen and set him up against the bed. He “rubbed him and fussed with his legs” for some time before he went for help. The length of time which elapsed he could not tell. He went to notify Dorothy and Steele and it was snowing at that time. During the day many neighbors and the coroner came to the house. He did not know that Hilsinger was the sheriff when he talked with him first. When he took Lavan in he lifted his head up and there was blood under it, but he did not stop to notice it as he was thinking about getting him in. He remembers showing some of them how he locked the door. He did not think the pin here was the pin, but it might be. He never struck him in his life and they did not have any trouble that night before they went to bed. He has no knowledge how Lavan met his death. The vest was outdoors, but as to how it came there he did not know. He did not wash his hands after bringing in Lavan’s body, but he put some ashes on the blood spot on the floor and swept them up.
 |
| O. U. Kellogg. |
Cross-examination was conducted by Hon. O. U. Kellogg. The witness testified as follows: He knew what he was doing that night before he went to bed and what he did in the morning when he got up. At 2 o’clock in the afternoon they arrived home and took the articles out of the wagon and put the team out. Then they went in the house and visited until it was time to do chores. After they were done, which was before dark, taking about half an hour, they had whiskey out of a pint bottle and when empty they filled the pint bottle and took the jug to the henhouse. Then they sat down and talked until 10 o’clock. He knew it was 10 for he looked at his watch. About 11 o’clock he went to bed. He told Lavan he was going to bed. He blew out the light and went to bed. He did not remember whether he invited Lavan to go to bed or not. His mother told him never to allow any body else to sleep in his bed and no one had that he ever knew. Lavan took off his overcoat when they came in the house and hung it behind the stove. Lavan was in the chair awake, smoking when he blew out the light. Green hardwood of beech or maple was behind the stove. He got up in the morning and dressed without lighting a lamp. He did not light a light after he arose. The lantern was under the table in the morning right where he left it the night before. The fire in the stove had not gone out and he put in more wood, then he stepped to the door and found Lavan lying there. He saw the overcoat behind the stove in the morning. He found Lavan lying there with his head resting on the banking with his feet pointing west. When he pulled him in he saw some blood where he pulled him in. He could not swear whether there was any blood upon his hands or face. He never has told anybody until to-day that he found Lavan with his head on the banking. He found the door of the house open and could not tell where the door peg was that morning. He did not tell anybody that the door was fastened. Herbert Haynes asked him if the door was open and he told him it was open. There was a little snow on the body of Lavan. His body was stiff some when he dragged him into the hallway. He did not think he was frozen nor did he discover any wounds upon him. After he put him against the bed, he rubbed his feet and tried to bring him to and when he got through he thought he was dead. He took off his boots after he got him into the kitchen, but could not tell where he put them. He thought that both sleeves were on, but he would not be sure. He noticed that the jacket was bloody. He left him lying in the doorway into the kitchen with his feet in the hall while he pulled his boots and jacket off. He did not discover the cuts on his face or his head up to this time. He was not breathing when he set him up against the bed. He could not tell whether his vest was on when he took off his jacket. He went up to the henhouse to see if any one had stolen his chickens and he looked for his jug, but did not drink any. He drank some whiskey out of the jug later after some people got there. He swept up a spot on the floor before he went for Dorothy. He put two hands full of ashes upon the floor, where there was snow, but not a pool of blood. There were some spots on the floor by the snow. He swept up the floor before he went to see Dorothy that it might be dry. He did tell Dorothy that he found Lavan out of doors frozen.
Court adjourned at 5:45 until 9 A. M. Friday with the cross-examination unfinished.
FRIDAY MORNING.
The defendant Galvin again took the stand and the cross-examination of the witness was continued by Hon. O. U. Kellogg.
When Dorothy came to Galvin’s house Galvin did not show him the cuts on the back of Lavan’s head. The witness denied saying, “that’s so, there is,” and also denied that he said, “this is a bad thing for me.” He did not know why he cleaned up the place on the floor before he went for Dorothy. He put ashes on the floor to dry up the wet place and to take up the snow. As Lavan’s body lay on the floor part of the body was in the kitchen and his legs and feet were in the hall. The defendant denied saying to Dorothy that “there was some stuff on the floor which he cleaned up.” He did not wash blood from Lavan or himself. He denied taking Hartman out of the door and pointing out where Lavan lay, also that Hartman said to him, “it did not look as though any one laid there.” He might have said to Hartman he was sorry that it had happened.
He had on the same shirt that morning which he wore to Tully the day before and had it on when he came to jail. He did not know what coat he had on.
The door pin referred to was exhibited to him and he did not think that it was his door pin but he refused to swear positively it was not. He had an iron pin which he used to fasten the door. It might have been 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch through. He denied telling any one that he fastened the door that night with the wooden pin. The following morning he did not look for either pin.
He went to the henhouse before going to Dorothy’s He ate breakfast after he called Dorothy. Was troubled and did not eat very much. The things on the table were not disturbed.
Galvin said that he got up between 5 and 6 o’clock in the morning. He told Sheriff Hilsinger that he got up about 5 o’clock. He got up just as it was getting light. He did not tell Dorothy that Lavan did not have his boots on when he found him. He did not think he told anybody that Lavan had his boots off when he found him.
This ended the cross-examination of the defendant and Coroner Wm. J. Moore of Cortland was called as the next witness.
DR. WM. J. MOORE.
He is a physician and surgeon of Cortland and coroner of the county. He has been coroner for ten years and has practiced here thirteen years. He thought it probable that a person falling upon the block of wood such as has been described might produce the wounds found upon the back of Lavan’s head. He testified to weakening effect of alcohol upon walls of the blood vessels.
Cross-examination: The bloody pin was exhibited and the doctor gave it as his best judgment that it was blood upon it and that half as much again was originally deposited there. He did not think that it would be probable that a person struck in the manner described would rise again.
D. O. CROFOOT.
D. O. Crofoot of Preble testified that the block before exhibited seemed to be worn more than when taken from the ice at the Galvin place. He was a coroner’s juror and saw Dr. Hunt fit the block into the cuts in the back of Lavan’s head.
Cross-examination: The points on the block looked higher at the time than they do now. There was water and snow frozen in the hollow between the points so that it made them more nearly a level edge. He would not swear that the block had the appearance of having been cut or changed.
With the examination of this witness the defense rested.
EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL.
Mrs. Julia Lavan, wife of Thomas Lavan, was the next witness.
JULIA LAVAN.
Her husband did not keep intoxicating liquors in the house. He did not drink daily. Some times it would be a month and some times every week.
HELEN E. KIRBY.
Helen E. Kirby was stenographer for the grand jury last September and took down the testimony of Dr. H. D. Hunt. Questions were put and answered as taken by her at that time. Certain questions denied by the doctor as having been made before the grand jury were made according to the testimony of this witness.
District Attorney Duffey offered in evidence the testimony given at the coroner’s inquest by Dr. Hunt that insensibility was produced by the violence of that blow and that it was so severe that enough blood escaped before recovering to have caused his death.
CURTIS DUBOIS.
Curtis Dubois of Preble of the coroner’s jury attempted to chip off the part above ice with a knife but later it was dug out. This witness gives an entirely different position of the block. It was on the side as compared with former descriptions and present but one pointed edge.
Cross-examination: The reason he tried to get the block out of the ice was because he thought it might fit the gashes in Lavan’s head. He tried to kick it out of the ice but in failure to do that he tried to cut off the part above the ice with his knife, just then somebody came with ax and shovel and they dug it out, and he took it into the house and gave it to Dr. Hunt. He saw it fitted into the cuts on Lavan’s head and he “called it a fit.”
He thought the smaller appearance in size now was due to the fact that it was filled with frozen moisture which had caused it to swell.
At 12:05 court adjourned until 2 P. M.
FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
Harley Dowd, a member of the coroner’s jury, was called to testify in regard to the block of wood. He corroborated the testimony of Dubois as to the position of the block which it will be remembered differed from that of all other witnesses. He saw Mr. Dubois try to cut off the portion above the ice with his knife and he dug the block out with an axe. There was not any ice on the part above the surface. He did not see him place the point “C” in the wound which was the uppermost point.
Cross-examination: He saw Dr. Hunt “try” to fit the block in the wounds in Lavan’s head.
SETH HOBART
Of Preble, foreman of the coroner’s jury, saw the block first in the ice and the point “C” was up. The point looked sharper at that time. He was not close enough to see Dr. Hunt fit the block to the wound.
CHARLES DENNIS
Of Preble, of the coroner’s jury corroborated the evidence of the three preceding witnesses in testimony given in regard to the block.
DR. H. D. HUNT
Was recalled to the stand by the defense. Question asked of him was objected to and objection sustained.
EVIDENCE CLOSED.
Evidence was closed in the Galvin trial at 2:55 P. M. The announcement by Judge Lyon that the evidence was closed caused a sigh of relief to pass over the courtroom.
THE SUMMING UP.
Attorney John Courtney arose at 3:15 P. M. and began the closing argument and plea for the life of Patrick Galvin. The courtroom, crowded to the doors, bore an anxious and expectant silence. The jury, wearied by nearly two weeks of continuous testimony, gave their undivided attention. The plea was passionate and emphatic, well calculated to gain the sympathy and confidence of the jury. The evidence of the defense was forcibly presented. Argument and plea were skillfully interwoven with evidence throughout. The weakness of the evidence of the prosecution was assailed with inspiring vehemence and the strength of the defense was presented with emphasis. The argument was logical throughout and imbued with an earnestness that made the impression lasting. Galvin, so far as his counsel has been concerned, has had as good as could be asked for. Their efforts have been strenuous and untiring in his behalf.
It was 4:55 P. M. when Attorney Courtney finished. He was followed five minutes later by District Attorney Duffey in the closing argument for the prosecution. On behalf of The People he thanked the jury for their patience and indulgence. The closing argument for the prosecution of necessity lacked the sympathetic setting of the defense and took on the character of stern justice. The unpleasant duty of the prosecution is, however, said the district attorney, a necessity for the preservation and security of human life. If it is the duty of the defense to seek to prevent the shedding of the innocent blood of one person, just so much more important is it that the prosecution should seek to preserve inviolate the lives of the people. The finished and polished manner of delivery and address in the closing argument was only exceeded by the careful and skillful exposition of theory, evidence and conclusion. The district attorney and counsel are to be congratulated upon their labor in behalf of The People.
No higher praise in addition can be given than the words of Judge Lyon himself, “they tried it for all there was in it.”
 |
| George F. Lyon. |
JUDGE LYON'S CHARGE.
Court adjourned at 6:45 o’clock until 8 o’clock when Judge Lyon made his charge to the jury. The charge was comprehensive, fair and impartial. In brief Judge Lyon spoke as follows:
“Gentlemen of the jury: The defendant, Patrick Galvin, is upon trial before you upon an indictment found by the grand jury, charging him with killing Thomas Lavan in Preble on the evening of Feb. 25, 1S97, or in the early morning of the 26th. To the indictment the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, or a denial of all charges which the indictment makes against him. The indictment charges premeditating an assault upon Lavan, inflicting two mortal wounds causing death. The court apprehends that the first question which will present itself will be the manner in which the two wounds upon the head of Lavan were inflicted, whether by Galvin striking him with a stick of wood as the people claim, or by falling upon the block of wood, or by some unknown person who was there the night in question. It is not necessary that the jury shall determine just how the wounds were inflicted in case they were not inflicted by Galvin. It is not incumbent upon the defense to show how the wounds were caused. The burden is not upon the defendant Galvin to satisfy the jury how these wounds were caused but upon the people.
“Now, gentlemen, has the evidence satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that Galvin inflicted the wounds upon the back of the head of Thomas Lavan? If you do not so find you must find a verdict of acquittal. But if you find that Galvin did inflict the wounds, then did they cause death? The physicians testifying for the defense show that these two wounds did cause death. Then it remains for the jury to determine that Patrick Galvin premeditated the assault and inflicted the wounds.
The court here defined the several degrees of murder and manslaughter. Proceeding he said:
“Then the controlling distinction is as to whether the killing was or was not committed with design and premeditation. Deliberation and premeditation require time to think and consider the act of killing and to determine to kill before doing it. The design to kill must have a definite purpose to kill. Some minds act very slowly and others very quickly, and whether a premeditation is proven must in each case be determined by all the circumstances in the case.
“If you find that the two wounds on Thomas Lavan were inflicted by Patrick Galvin, then you pass to the consideration of the question whether the act was premeditated. If the act of killing was with design it is murder, but if without design it is manslaughter.
“Evidence has been given that Galvin was intoxicated at the time when the wounds were inflicted. The intoxication of the defendant, if it existed, was his own voluntary act and was voluntary intoxication. But the jury may take into consideration the question of intoxication to show the motive or intent. The law holds him just as responsible as if he was not intoxicated. Thus if the jury shall find Galvin guilty, then they may take into consideration the fact of intoxication to determine the degree of crime.”
The evidence of the people is mostly circumstantial. Several charges were made by request of the defendant's attorneys.
The question of reasonable doubt was fully explained. The law presumes innocence until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, and in case of such doubt the defendant is entitled to acquittal. Reasonable doubt is not a surmise merely, but a doubt for which some good reason can be given.
The question of good character was proven by the defense, and the jury must give that evidence such weight as in their opinion it deserves.
The court has been very much gratified at the patience with which the jury has listened to the evidence, and asked the jury to give the case the same patient consideration in the juryroom.
If you find Patrick Galvin guilty of murder in the first or second degree, or of manslaughter, then be men and say so; and if innocent, be men and say so.”
THE JURY GOES OUT.
The judge’s charge was completed about 9 o'clock. The courtroom was cleared and the jury left to their deliberation. How long they deliberated is not known, but reporters who hung around until midnight left in disgust when told by the constables who slept on cots in front of each door that they heard only snoring coming from the courtroom. It is likely that the jury concluded to take some much needed rest before beginning the consideration of the weighty subject.
AFTER TWENTY HOURS A VERDICT RENDERED OF “NOT GUILTY.”
Patsey at Once Jumped up and Kissed Attorney John Courtney, Jr., Full on the Lips and the Latter Looked as Though He Liked It—Galvin Discharged and Amid Many Congratulations Left the Court Room for His Home in Preble.
Just as The Standard was closing its last form Saturday afternoon the jury in the Galvin case which had been out for twenty hours sent in word that it was ready to render its verdict. Every one was surprised, for the long delay pointed to a disagreement. The Standard’s forms were held back from the press long enough to get in a three line announcement of the acquittal of the defendant and to make the exclusive announcement that night of the result for the benefit of its hundreds of readers who had waited for the verdict with interest, and who depend upon their local paper to give them the latest and most complete and accurate news.
When the word came that the verdict was ready telephone messages were sent to the attorneys, and in a few minutes all were assembled with the prisoner within the bar. Judge Lyon made the formal inquiry of the jury if they had agreed upon a verdict and Foreman John L. Smith of Marathon announced that they had.
“What is it, guilty or not guilty?” asked the court.
“Not guilty.”
Judge Lyon then discharged the prisoner and at once little Patsey jumped up and plumped a resounding smack full upon the lips of Attorney John Courtney, Jr., who had conducted his defense from the beginning, and Mr. Courtney looked as though he liked it. He afterwards said to a Standard man that nothing ever touched him more than that kiss from the little Irishman, for it came straight from the heart. He didn’t say it was the sweetest kiss he ever had, but he seemed to think it was a good one. And he and his associates well earned the thanks of the defendant, for they put up a big fight against able counsel. The case was indeed tried, as Judge Lyon said, “for all there was in it.”
The judge then thanked the jury for their patient bearing and careful consideration of the evidence and discharged them, and then court adjourned.
Galvin started at once for his home in Preble.
No comments:
Post a Comment