JOHN TRUCK TRIAL—GUILTY, FIRST DEGREE MURDER

 

New York Supreme Court Judge Albert H. Sewell.

Cortland Semi-Weekly Standard, Tuesday, March 20, 1900.

GUILTY, FIRST DEGREE.

JURY UNANIMOUS IN VERDICT IN TRUCK TRIAL.

Out Only Five Hours—Reached Conclusion Long Before That—Prisoner Sentenced to Electrocution at Auburn Prison in Week Beginning April 29—Truck Was Unmoved When He Heard Verdict and Sentence, But Made a Row in Jail Afterward—The Summing Up of the Counsel on Both Sides.

   For the third time in the history of Cortland county a jury has brought in a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. The first time was in the summer of 1853 when O’Donoghue was convicted of the murder of Mrs. Kinney of Truxton. He was hung in the grand jury room of the court house in Cortland by Sheriff Frederick Ives at 12:27 on Friday, Sept. 2, 1853.

   The second conviction was on June 18, 1863, when Daniel Salisbury was convicted of the murder of his wife in 1862, after a four days’ trial. He was sentenced on June 22 to be hung on Aug. 14 between the hours of 10 A. M. and 2 P. M. in the Cortland county court house.

   Hon. Charles Mason was the presiding justice who pronounced the sentence. According to the law at that time the county judge, Hon. Hiram Crandall, and the two justices of sessions, Stephen Brewer of Cortland and Fredus Howard of Preble, sat with the supreme court judge on the bench in a murder trial. Mr. Ives was again the sheriff at this time, and he felt as though he could not go through the nervous strain of a second execution in the courthouse, and he went to Albany and got Salisbury’s sentence commuted by the governor to imprisonment for life. He died in Auburn prison.

   The third conviction was on the night of March 16, 1900, when after a trial covering eighteen days John Truck of Homer was said by the jury to be guilty of murder in the first degree in taking the life of Frank W. Miller of Virgil between the hours of 7 and 9 o’clock on the night of March 14, 1899.

   The jury went out at 5:45 o’clock Friday afternoon. Judge Sewell decided to hold court open till 10 o’clock and if no verdict was reached at that time to adjourn court till 9:30 o ’clock Saturday morning. At 10 o’clock nothing had been reported. At 10:15 the judge directed that the cots of the jurors might be placed in the jury room with quilts upon them so that they could rest if they chose, but that no sheets were to be permitted and no arrangements for making up the beds in general.

   At 10:29 the jury signified to Deputy Sheriff A. H. Metzgar who was on guard that they had agreed upon a verdict. Word was at once sent to Judge Sewell at the Cortland House, to Deputy Clerk Jones and to Attorneys Duffey and Miller. Shortly before 11 o’clock all gathered at the courtroom and the jury came in and the defendant who had gone to bed was brought up.

   The jury reported through its foreman, George S. Cady of Scott, that it found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment.

   The prisoner seemed absolutely unmoved when he listened to the verdict, but he made a row in the jail below after he was taken back. When aroused in the first place with the news that the jury had agreed upon a verdict he remarked that he supposed they were “now going to raise hell” with him. He was decidedly ugly after he went back below, and used very strong language for several hours.

   The jury was very much moved in its feelings and was nervous as to whether or not a correct verdict had been reached. Judge Sewell before dismissing them formally thanked them for their painstaking care and good attention and for discharging their duty so faithfully. After discharging them he talked with them for an hour or more and told them that he did not see how upon the evidence they could have rendered any other verdict.

   Afterward the jury were given their beds with sheets and rested soundly during the night. Next morning after breakfast the jury and court attendants presented to Mrs. Brainard, the wife of the sheriff, a nice sum of money to purchase for herself whatever she chose as a souvenir of this trial and token of regard of her large “family.” Mrs. Brainard has done everything in her power during these three weeks for the comfort and convenience of the jury and court officers. Watts Freer, the spokesman, addressed her as “Mother” Brainard in making his presentation speech. Mrs. Brainard started to reply by saying “Gentlemen,” but Mr. Freer broke in with “Oh, don’t call us gentlemen, call us boys. We are all your boys,” and she did then talk to her “boys.”

   Saturday morning Truck was in an ugly mood and when his breakfast was brought to him he declared he wouldn’t eat the “hog feed,” he knew his rights under the law and he wanted such feed as he was entitled to. Eggs on toast were then served to him. A condemned criminal is usually privileged in some matters in respect to diet.

   At a later period several of the jurymen visited him in his cell and he announced that he was about to begin his own defense; that there had been no defense so far at all in his case and that he was now about to make his own defense. One of his visitors inquired as to what that defense was to consist of and along what line it was to lie, and he replied that he had not yet decided what it would he. He acted decidedly ugly.

   It may be stated right here that the prisoner, William Tompkins, who testified against Truck has not since being sworn been confined in the same cell, but has since occupied a cell on the floor above. From the look on Truck’s face while the man was testifying it may be inferred that perhaps the change of location was wise for the safety of Tompkins.

   A Standard man interviewed several members of the jury Saturday morning and at first they were inclined to be very uncommunicative, saying that they had decided not to say much about it. But at last it appeared that they had decided very quickly as to the verdict to be rendered, but were disinclined to bring it in too soon for the very looks of it. Besides they hoped that some of the crowd might get away from the court room before the jury reported. But when the cots were brought in and few conveniences for sleeping the verdict followed very quickly, though no one would probably acknowledge that it was on this account that the jury reported when it did.

   It proves that the first proceeding was the election of George S. Cady of Scott as foreman. Three ballots were then taken as follows:

   Did Truck kill Miller? Yes, 12 votes.

   Was Truck guilty of the indictment of murder in the first degree as charged? Yes 11, blank 1.

   A second ballot was then taken on the same question and twelve affirmative votes were cast.

   Long before 10 o’clock, the hour appointed Saturday morning, the court room was crowded to the doors. At 10:12 court was opened, the prisoner sitting in his seat in charge of Deputy Sheriff R. A. Ryan of Cuyler. All of the jurors were present except William Salisbury. There were a few minutes of consultation between the judge and counsel on both sides and then at 10:23 District Attorney Duffey arose and said:

   May it please the court, I would call up the case of The People vs. John Truck, who has been convicted of murder in the first degree, and inasmuch as counsel for the defense has waived the two days permitted to the defendant by statute for the imposition of sentence, I would move that he be now sentenced.

   Mr. Miller of counsel for the defendant then formally waived the two days delay and consented to immediate sentence.

   Deputy Clerk Jones directed the defendant to come forward and be sworn. In reply to the clerk’s questions he testified: My name is John Truck. I shall be 41 years old on the 9th of next May. I was born in Fayetteville, N. Y. My present residence is Homer. I am a laborer. I am a married man. I have not had much of any education. I have had some religious instruction. I am a Catholic. I think my father is living. My m other is dead. My habits have been temperate. I have been convicted of another offense on a former occasion. I know of no legal reason or cause why sentence should not be immediately imposed upon me.

   Judge Sewell then imposed sentence upon the prisoner as follows:

   John Truck, you have had a fair and impartial trial. You have been defended with great ability. You have been given the full official power of this court to enable you to protect your rights, and yet a jury of twelve men of your own selection, after a careful and conscientious consideration of the evidence, have determined that you are guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree. I am compelled to say that from this evidence they could not have done otherwise. I have no discretion in the matter. The law fixes the penalty for your crime and requires me to pronounce the judgment of the law and that is: That during the week commencing the 29th day of April, 1900, at the State prison in the city of Auburn you shall suffer the death penalty according to law.

   The prisoner during this time appeared unmoved. His mouth had a hard set to it and his eyes sparkled. He took an occasional chew at a big quid of tobacco in his mouth. He stood erect with his hands behind his back during the time that he was answering to the questions and was receiving sentence.

   Immediately after sentence was pronounced the prisoner was taken back to the jail and the court room was quickly cleared.

   The prisoner was taken to Auburn Monday morning by Under Sheriff John Miller.

   Stenographer Rose says that of the fifty-three murder cases which he has reported there have been a large number of convictions of murder in the first degree, but only six have been executed. If Truck is executed he will be the seventh.

   The medical testimony of the two experts for the prosecution was completed Thursday afternoon and was in substance as follows:

DR. HENRY E. ALLISON.

   Dr. Henry E. Allison, the first expert witness for the prosecution, testified: I reside in Matteawan, N. Y., and have for eight years past. I have been a physician for twenty-two years. I have made a special study of diseases of the mind during the greater part of my practice. For seven years I was an assistant physician at the Willard State hospital at Ovid; for four years more first assistant physician at the same place, and then became medical superintendent for the insane criminals at Auburn prison, and have remained continuously in that position since 1889, only that in 1892 the insane criminals from the whole state were all taken to Matteawan, and the name of this part of the institution was changed to the Matteawan State hospital for the Criminal Insane. It is now the only criminal insane hospital in the state. My duties are to supervise the institution; receive patients; observe their mental condition while there; when discharged certify to the courts if they are sufficiently recovered to be released. While at Willard in my first position, as an assistant physician, I used to call upon about four hundred insane patients daily and was in direct charge of 250 to 300 patients. When I became first assistant, I had a smaller number to look after.

   At Matteawan we have an insane population of about 700; the highest number ever there at one time was 738. There is an annual admission of about 150 cases, and we annually discharge from eighty to ninety patients. The institution is growing. I have four medical assistants. My duties take me in daily communication with the patients. I have contributed to medical journals articles on criminals and insanity, and have testified in court as a medical expert in insanity cases.

   I have examined the defendant, John Truck, and have noticed him here in the courtroom. I have seen him sit in a varying posture, by placing one leg over the other, but generally being in about the same position. I have noticed him walk in going from the courtroom with the officers. I saw him deliver a piece of paper yesterday, seemingly an envelope, to some one. He slipped it through the bars of a chair and waited till it was received. I have examined him three times. The first time was in the sheriff’s parlor. We sat down by each other. I asked him how old he was; he said he didn’t know. I asked him where he was born; he replied, “I don’t know, I don’t know nothing.” I said. “John, you have been engaged in baling hay; how much does a bale of hay weigh? He said he didn’t know. I asked him whether it weighed ten pounds or 1,200 pounds; he said he didn’t know. I began to talk of steam threshers and asked him if his machine was run by steam power or horse power; he said he didn’t know. I told him his physicians had sworn that he could talk on the subject of machinery and I asked if he couldn’t talk on that to-day. I asked if he couldn’t run an engine and he said he could as well as any man. I asked him if he had had something to eat that day, and he said he didn’t know. I asked him how old he was; he said he didn’t know. Well, I said, don’t you know whether you are 10 years or 200 years? He said some days he felt as though he was 200 years old. He told me that the scar on his head was very tender; that he felt pains running up his back. His back felt very tender he said, and he objected to my feeling of it even through his coat and vest. He said he didn’t know anything about the trial which was in progress, or where they took him each day or what they took him there for. He said he didn’t know how many there were in the jail—whether one or 500. I asked him if he knew whether he was in a room or on the street; he said he guessed he was in a room. I said, "About these questions, either you won’t answer them or you can’t, which is it?” He said, “I can’t.” I examined his tongue. It was rather tremulous. I asked him if he was now standing up or sitting down; he thought he was sitting down. While I was talking with him I noticed that he was observing the pictures on the wall and the furniture. I examined his pulse about ten minutes after I began the examination and found it to be eighty-four. I asked him to take several deep breaths; he said he couldn’t, he was dreadfully sore in his breast. I listened to his heart and lungs. He said that hurt him. I examined the reflexes of his knee. In some forms of insanity the reflex is exaggerated, that is, if the knee is struck the leg flies up. His reflex was normal. I asked him if he was worried; he replied, “I don’t know; I dassen’t say anything; I’m just like a young one.” He said he never hurt any one, man, woman or child, and he didn’t know why he was shut up. I asked him if he knew the difference between right and wrong and he said he didn’t. I asked him if he thought it wrong to steal and he said he wouldn’t steal because he didn’t want anybody to steal from him. I asked him if he ever had a watch; he didn’t know. I handed him my watch and asked him what time it was. He said half past ten. It was in fact half past eleven. I asked him if he hadn’t looked wrong and if it wasn’t half past eleven, and he thought it was. I asked him if he had rather go to prison or to an insane asylum. He said he wasn’t going to either place; he hadn’t done anything to any one and he didn’t know why they should lead him around like a little dog.

   I saw him again yesterday in the jail after the adjournment of court. I asked him if he knew the witnesses who had testified and he said he did not. I asked him if he knew me, he said he did not, he had never seen me before. He said he didn’t want me to bother him. He was sitting on a table at the time with his hands clasped about one knee, the leg swinging. I asked him if he knew what he was sitting on; he said he guessed it was a bench. I attempted ostensibly to take his pulse and he noticed that fact; with the other hand I pressed hard on a place which the day before he had said was very sore. He gave no evidence of pain. He said he didn’t want people to bother him. We were all bothering him.

   I saw him again this morning in the grand jury room, and had a little conversation with him. Dr. Hamilton was with us. Dr. Hamilton felt of the scar and he made no manifestation of pain, as on the first day. I mentioned the fact to him and then he wouldn’t let me touch it and said it was sore and dodged back when I attempted to do so. Dr. Hamilton asked him to cross to a window so he could examine his palate and started off toward a window at the end of the room. John started to follow. I said, “John, go to the second window,” and he at once altered his direction and went to the second window. I asked him if he was a man or a woman, and he said he was a man.

   I think he was trying to deceive me. I think he could answer the questions if he wanted to. He understood me perfectly when I told him to go to the second window. It was clearly an intelligent act when he passed that note to the man in the court room. People who are insane are likely as a rule to remember the early events of their lives. I asked him if he dressed or undressed himself; and he said he didn’t know. I asked him if he took care of himself and he told me he didn’t know. His personal appearance was not such as I should expect in a person who professed such a lack of intelligence. I should not expect him to be dressed as carefully as he is. I should not expect him to go to or from the courtroom unaided. I should not expect him to take the interest in things going on around him that he evidently does take.

   Dr. Allison was then asked if he had seen and heard the first hypothetical question of the defense and he replied that he had both heard and seen it and had examined it fully. In the light of my examination, he said, I should reply in answer to that question that the defendant was a sane man on March 14, 1899.

   The second hypothetical question of the defense had also been heard and examined by this witness and he replied to it that in his opinion the defendant was not laboring under such a defect of reason on March 14, 1899, that he did not know the nature and quality of the act which he committed and that it was wrong, but that he believed he did know the nature and quality of the act which he committed and that it was wrong.

   The first hypothetical question of the prosecution was then read to witness. It was very lengthy, and among its assumptions were the following: That defendant was a man about 40 years of age possessed of some little mechanical skill; that he was accustomed to work for the wages currently paid for that class of labor; that he said on March 10 that he couldn’t work on March 13 because he had got to go to Virgil on business for himself; that on March 11 he borrowed a rifle on the pretext of wishing it to shoot foxes with; that he started out on Monday, March 13, in search of a horse; that he lodged that night at Frank W. Miller’s; that he remained in the neighborhood the next day; that he told one party he would take Miller’s horse if he couldn’t do better elsewhere; that on the night of March 14 between the hours of 7 and 9 P. M. he killed Frank W. Miller in his home; that he ransacked his house and picked up his portable property; that he set fire to his house, went, out, locked the door and drove away his [Miller’s] gray horse; that he put the colt in the stall where the gray horse usually stood; that he drove to Homer; that next day he drove to Christian Hollow, wearing Miller’s clothes; that he was arrested; that he wrote two letters from the jail and had them posted to two different parties—letters in which he said that the writer had killed Miller and that he made this confession so that Truck might not suffer for the crime of another; that he told Mr. Fassett that he was an ignorant and uneducated man and could neither read nor write, and that too when he knew that Mr. Fassett had seen him write hundreds of times; that when the insanity experts had sought to examine him he had told them he didn’t know what was going on in the court room; that he had told a fellow prisoner all the details of the trial from day to day. On these suppositions the witness was asked would he say that on March 14, 1899, John Truck was sane or insane.

   The defense at once objected to the question on the ground that it contained facts not proved by evidence; that it omitted other facts necessary to make a conclusion; and that it was generally illegal and incompetent.

   Objection overruled by court.

   I considered that he was sane, replied the witness.

   The prosecution then put a second question, that assuming the truth of all the particulars mentioned in the first question, was the defendant on March 14, 1899, laboring under such a defect of reason that he did not know the nature and quality of the act which he committed and that it was wrong?

   Objected to by defense for same reasons as above.

   Overruled.

   He was not, replied the witness.

   The cross examination of Dr. Allison was not extended. Among the additional points brought out were the following:

   I have known lunatics to lie, but it is not a more frequent habit with them than with sane people. I do not find it true that lunatics are more suspicious or evasive than sane people. Pulse first time taken was 84; second time at middle of interview 72; at close of interview was 78. There is a slight depression in right malar bone; don’t think there was any asymmetry to frontal bone. Jaw bone was regular. Capillary circulation is poor. That is a fact in some cases of insanity. Moods are no more characteristic of insane than of sane.

   Redirect examination—As a rule insane people believe themselves to be perfectly sane and profess to be sane. The tremor of the tongue is also found in sane as well as insane. It is usually in people in a rather debilitated condition, proceeding from lack of exercise or poor health.

   At the close of Dr. Allison’s testimony at 12:20 P. M. court took a recess till 2 P. M.

Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton.

 

THURSDAY AFTERNOON.

   The court room was crowded to about its fullest extent on this afternoon with eager listeners assembled to hear the testimony of probably the greatest expert on insanity in this country at present if not in the world, Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton, a grandson of Alexander Hamilton. The court officers were more lenient on this day and let all up stairs who could possibly get inside the doors. At one time some expressions of approval or disapproval were heard from the audience and the court threatened to clear the room if it was repeated.

   Among the county physicians who were noted as present to h ear the testimony were Drs. Higgins, Reese, Dana, Didama, Neary and Bennett of Cortland; Green and Bradford of Homer; Kinyon of Cincinnatus; Smith of McGraw; and Emery of Virgil.

   At the beginning of the afternoon session Dr. Allison was recalled to the stand to briefly explain a conversation which he had had with a previous witness and which amounted to just about one sentence from either party.

DR. ALLAN McLANE HAMILTON.

   Dr. Hamilton was then called and testified in reply to questions: I reside in New York City and have done so for thirty-five years past. I am a physician and for twenty-five to thirty years have devoted myself to a special study of diseases of the mind and of the brain. From 1873 to 1880 I was the physician for the insane upon Blackwell’s Island, New York. Since that time I have been the consulting physician for the Hudson River Insane hospital, and hold a similar position among insane hospitals in New York. I have been called in consultation in other cases and have seen a great many important cases during the last thirty years. Among them the Guiteau case, the murderer of Garfield. I have assisted the district attorney of New York in a large number of cases. I have seen from 200 to 300 in sanity cases in court, including both criminal and civil cases. I am an alumnus of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New York and won the faculty prize in 1870. I am now professor of mental diseases in the Cornell university medical college in New York City. I am connected with the American Medical Psychological society the New York Neurological society; and I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I have published a small treatise on Medical Jurisprudence, but that came out twenty years ago and is now antiquated in parts. The second edition of a later and more complete work in two large volumes is now just out.

   I was in Cortland on Jan. 8 to see the defendant, John Truck. I went to your city jail in company with Dr. Milne. I was left alone with the prisoner to make my examination. In the first part of the examination which pertained to the eyes alone I was assisted by the sheriff and then he left the room. The defendant entered the room where I was with a slouchy gait. He looked distrustful and took a seat. I told him frankly that I had come at the request of the district attorney to see whether he was in a physical and mental condition to stand trial. He looked like a man who had been in jail for some time; badly nourished and with surface cold. There was a general tremor to tongue, but it was not a fibulary tremor. I have met with this kind of a tremor before as an evidence of weakness. The man was run down, but it had nothing to do with his mental condition. There was a tremor in his hands, but none about his face, such as is sometimes found in mental cases. There was an involuntary twitching to his eyes, such as I had seen before. I used the ophthalmoscope. I had been told that he had had injuries to his head. I used the instrument to look for the eye fungus at the back of the eye. Sometimes that follows an inflammation of the brain. The pupil contracted well with the light, both natural and artificial, and there was no evidence of disease so far as the eyes are concerned. He told me he could neither read nor write. I made large marks with a pencil on paper and held it before him. He told me he could see the letters at a distance of eighteen inches from his eyes, but nearer by could not see them at all. I put upon him a pair of low power spectacles and drew the paper nearer to him. He persisted he could not see the letters. If he could see at eighteen inches without the glasses he certainly ought to with them at a nearer point.

   At the beginning of the examination his pulse was 144. I always take the pulse at intervals to determine the state of the emotions. A dull person does not have much change to his pulse. One hour later his pulse had dropped to 104. He had become accustomed to my presence.

   I examined his head to determine whether there was malformation. Sometimes the insane have this in a marked degree. We all have some differences. The right sides of our bodies are larger than our left sides, and the left side of the brain which controls the right side of the body is larger than the right side. I found no evidence of asymmetry. His head is small in proportion to the rest of his body. There was nothing out of the way with the roof of his mouth. It was neither peaked nor contracted, but round as it should be. His teeth were small. I noticed no difference in the sides of his face the first time I saw him, except that produced by an uncommonly large chew of tobacco which he kept in one side of his mouth. Hearing the testimony of another in regard to asymmetry I made a second examination to-day to confirm or contradict the testimony and measured his head very accurately with instruments made for the purpose. (Dr. Hamilton here exhibited to the jury a chart which he had made, having drawn it from the scale.) I found that the left side of the cheek was one-half inch larger than the right side, but that there was no evidence of a projection of the frontal bone. My opinion is that this was accidental, and it is so slight as not to be of any moment. Everybody has differences between the two sides of their faces. To say that irregularities which are atypical or unusual are evidences of insanity is wrong. Some of the brightest and cleverest people I have known and people with the best judgment have had bad shaped heads. A slight defect means nothing. In this case the difference is not worthy of moment and does not play any part in the case. I tested his reflexes. They were so nearly normal as not to have any significance. His eyeballs moved responsively.

   During the entire examination he appeared suspicious and reticent. The only time when he spoke freely was when he referred to his illness and to pains in his head. He told me he had curious sensations in his head which he couldn’t define; that he had erysipelas in his legs and rheumatism generally. I tested and found no signs of erysipelas, none of rheumatism. Other subjects of conversation were introduced. He corrected me as to my ignorance of the subject of baling hay, and he talked sensibly in regard to it.

   Next I wanted to find out his ideas of right and wrong. He became unusually reticent and didn’t want to answer. He admitted that he knew that the punishment for murder in one degree is electrocution and in another imprisonment, and said that a man who commits murder except in self defense ought to be punished. This examination lasted one hour and thirty minutes.

   I examined him again to-day and he was very quiet. I don’t think he said anything. I examined the scar which is 1 1/2 inches long and applied a firm pressure to it. He complained of pain after it was all through. 1 asked him to go to a window. Dr. Allison called to him to go to the second window, and he obeyed him, changing his course from the window to which he had started to follow me. His ears are of good shape.

   I find no evidence of brain disease in him nor of delusions. I asked him if anybody had been unkind to him or had treated him badly and he said no. He seems possessed of ordinary intelligence. He has no dementia. I have observed a change of manner in him depending on the subject under consideration. He was not as nervous to-day when examined as when seen here in the court room. Sitting here he is apparently taking an interest in what goes on. He has followed with his eyes the movements of witnesses, as I have observed him. He has watched their faces to see what they said. He is certainly not dull, nor indifferent. He showed annoyance to-day when the prisoner witness was on the stand and pursed his eyes and mouth up and looked angry and offended.

   When he first came into the room the first day I saw him he was ill at ease, looked about furtively; would close his eyes when asked questions and would move about in his chair. But when he went away he was more at ease and his pulse had dropped forty beats.

   Dr. Hamilton was then asked the hypothetical question No. 1 of the defendant and replied, “As far as these questions go he was a sane man.” He was then asked the second hypothetical question and said that he had seen and examined the letters mailed from the jail which were referred to in the question and that in reply to the question he did not find the defendant laboring under such a defect of reason as not to understand the nature and quality of the act which he committed and that it was wrong. The witness said further that the elements in the first part of the first question were nothing that any person might not do and be perfectly sane; and that the second part did not show any insanity. He also said that the performance of the acts in the second question were the acts of a sane man, and that he had carefully considered the two letters in reaching the conclusion.

   In reply to prosecution’s first question he said that defendant was sane on the basis of those assumptions; and in reply to the second question said that the defendant on those assumptions knew the quality and character of the act committed, and that it was wrong.

   Cross examination—The witness was subjected to a long and sharp cross examination by Mr. Miller, but his testimony was unshaken. It was brought out that only once in a capital case in the course of all his experience had Dr. Hamilton found his views on insanity not accepted by a jury. The doctor said: More cases of insanity proceed from heredity than from any other cause. The insane have motives for their acts as truly as the sane, but they proceed from improper bases. I don’t think there is such a thing as moral insanity separate from intellectual insanity. I don’t think you can have morals without intellect.

   Redirect examination—Circular insanity is a name given to insanity that comes in cycles. The changes include a mania, a calm, then melancholia; then the three repeated. After a while the patient becomes permanently insane. I never saw any one stage of this last less than a week. Usually each takes more than a week. The crowding of the three into a single week or less is impossible. An insane patient is sometimes boastful, but so boastful that a layman can readily detect it by knowing the utter impossibility of it. For instance an insane person might boast that he owned the island of Cuba, or the city of Albany or the Lackawanna railroad. The station from which a person comes makes no difference with his ideas of boastfulness to an insane person. A poor person may boast of something that would look small to another man who is sane, but when he becomes insane that comparative idea of great and small always disappears entirely, and rich or poor make boasts of things so large as to be clearly impossible, whenever the insanity takes the form of boastfulness. It is not true that insane people are more suspicious than the sane. Quite the reverse. Sane people have all the vigor of a sound mind to be suspicious with, but they keep it under control by power of mind, while insane people show it all out. Moods are by no means necessarily a characteristic of insanity. Robbery is a very uncommon feature of insanity. Sometimes there will be petty pilfering, the carrying off of small articles utterly useless, but robbery for gain is never known in insanity.

   After over two hours of examination Dr. Hamilton was excused, and the prosecution rested.

 

DR. H. T. DANA.

   Dr. H. T. Dana was recalled by the defense and testified: I have testified to asymmetry found in the bones of the head, the cheek and the mouth. I have examined the defendant since noon and taken measurements with a hatter’s machine used for fitting hats to the conformations of the head. I adjusted it carefully. I have the results registered on a paper. The register shows a well marked prominence of the left frontal bone. I got my machine of Daehler, the hatter.

   The cross examination brought out a statement that Dr. Dana believed thoroughly in the accuracy of his machine. The diagram was reduced in size and the prosecution claimed that a natural effect of the reduction would be to exaggerate the prominences and the depressions. This the doctor denied.

DR. HAMILTON.

   The defense rested and the prosecution recalled Dr. Hamilton. He attempted to say in reply to questions that a hatter’s machine could not be sufficiently accurate to register in a matter of that kind, and he got out his sentence, but the defense objected to it and the court ordered it stricken from the record. Then in reply to questions he stated that he found inaccuracies in the diagram submitted; that a certain line supposed to be parallel with a certain other line he found by using a delicate measuring instrument which he had with him was not parallel. He said he had experimented with this class of machines in the past and had discarded them as difficult to get accurate results from because a little change in adjustment would make a variation in the result.

   The defense here rested and the evidence was declared closed. After court adjourned the attorneys and the doctors gathered within the bar to talk over that machine and that diagram, but apparently in the end neither side was convinced and both maintained the correctness of their opinions.

 

FRIDAY MORNING.

   By 8 o’clock Friday morning the crowd had begun wending its way toward the courtroom to hear the summing up in the Truck murder case. The case had been on trial for seventeen days, during which time the prosecution had sworn ninety-two witnesses and the defense thirty-two witnesses. A considerable number of the witnesses for the prosecution had been recalled, and some of them several times, while the same was true to a less extent of the witnesses for the defense. The bar was reserved solely for lawyers, physicians and reporters. A few seats had been reserved for the friends of the attorneys on both sides and the rest were filled in by the public in general in the order of first come, first served. It took but a few minutes to fill all these seats and then the aisles and passageways became choked with people standing.

   It was 9:38 when the jury filed in to their seats. Each juror has occupied the same seat since the trial began. And a moment later the prisoner was brought up by Under Sheriff Hazard and Deputy Sheriff Ryan. The west passageway had been kept clear for his entrance, but right on the heels of the deputy sheriff the crowd that had been kept back surged forward like a mighty wave till there was hardly breathing space among the people standing.

   At 9:13 Crier Van Hoesen opened court and Deputy Clerk Jones called the roll of the jury and the prisoner at the bar.

Nathan Lewis Miller.

   At exactly 9:45 Attorney N. L. Miller arose to begin his summing up for the defense. He began by congratulating the jury, that after three long weeks the evidence was closed and that they were approaching the great duty for which they had been selected. Whatever else may be thought of the prisoner, whatever else may be directed in regard to him all will agree that he is one of those poor unfortunates who came into the world with weakened brain and nature. He has been an object of suspicion of all. He has sat in this courtroom without a friend in the world, unable to give any advice to his counsel as to the line of defense. Mr. Miller then referred to the good attention of the jury throughout the trial to all the evidence submitted, and appealed to them to decide the question on the evidence. He said that it had been clearly established that on. March 15 the prisoner appeared arrayed in the clothing of Frank W. Miller, with other property of his in his possession. He warned them against seizing upon that fact alone and letting their prejudice influence their verdict. He claimed that prejudice had unwittingly influenced the prosecution’s witnesses, though they had meant to be honest in all they said.

   Mr. Miller called attention to certain rules of law: that every presumption is with the defendant; if there is a reasonable doubt, that doubt must be given to the defendant; if there is a reasonable doubt as to which of two degrees of crime, the jury must bring in the lesser; at the outset the fact of the commission of this crime must first be established, before any one can be held for it. There are two points to this: First, that Frank W. Miller was actually the one found there in that building; second, that this defendant was the means of that death.

   Mr. Miller then began taking up in detail the evidence which had been submitted to prove that the body found in the burning building was actually that of Frank W. Miller. He discussed at length the testimony of the physicians who examined the body and helped to identify the remains. He then passed to the question of deliberation and premeditation as applied to the defendant if he did indeed commit the crime. He inferred that because the defendant was in the neighborhood of Miller’s house for two days before the tragedy, practically advertising his presence in that vicinity, he would not have premeditated the crime. That would have been unreasonable. He argued that the theory of premeditation falls to the dust, because if he premeditated the crime he would know he would be suspected, and under those conditions he would never have appeared next day wearing the clothes of his victim and having in his possession other property taken from his house. He perhaps thought to claim that he bought the horse from Miller, but the last man he talked to (Blose) before going to Miller’s on the night of March 14 he told he had no money. Would he have done that if he had thought to claim buying the horse?

   Having set up his facts to show an absence of premeditation the speaker then called attention to other facts to show his theory of the true state of affairs. He interpreted Mrs. Miller’s testimony to show that her son had started from her house for his home by 5:30 or at the latest 6 o’clock. He quoted Prof. Orndorff’s testimony to show that Miller’s supper must have been digested in an hour or shortly more after eaten; and that it was not half digested. He called attention to testimony that Truck was at Blose’s at dusk, which must have been from 6:30 to 7 o’clock, and claimed that he could not have been at Miller’s in time to have committed the murder at the time. He said it was not the province of the defense to show what did occur at Miller’s house that night; that was for the prosecution to do. He called attention to the fact that Miller had a kicking horse, and inquired whether it might not be true that Miller had been kicked and had gotten into the house and died there before Truck got there, and that when he did come and found Miller dead he was led to steal his property. On this theory alone and on these facts he thought the prisoner should be acquitted of the crime charged in the indictment. But it was not necessary for the defense to set up a theory, only to show the impossibility of the facts as claimed by prosecution.

   Mr. Miller then passed to the question of whether Truck was in a mental state on March 14 to know the nature and quality of the act which he committed and that it was wrong. He would simply assume for the sake of argument that Truck did commit the crime charged, though he would not concede it, but he would assume it with one reservation, that if it was done it was done as the result of impulse and not as a result of premeditation. He called attention to the law that no act done by an idiot or a lunatic was a crime, and if they found that Truck was either the one or the other and still did commit the act, the jury must acquit. Many facts were then brought into line to show the insanity of the prisoner. The attorney denounced in strong language the swearing of the prisoner Tompkins and said that this was the only thing which he found in the trial upon which to criticize the district attorney. He declared the testimony of Tompkins to be the result of a deal that his case should not be moved for trial and that he would soon be released. Attention was then called to Truck’s two letters sent to Mr. Fassett and to Mr. Witty, and claimed that if anything else was needful to prove insanity this was the thing. The testimony of witnesses who testified that Truck’s acts, conversation, conduct and manner were irrational was then referred to, and the character of the witnesses themselves was spoken of in high terms. Emphasis was placed upon the fact that these witnesses testified that these acts impressed them at the time as being irrational. Reference was then made to the testimony of Dr. White and Dr. Dana as experts and to the value of their testimony as saying that the defendant was insane. The testimony of Dr. Hamilton was discussed at length and assailed in an ironical manner, claiming that the doctor appeared here as an advocate rather than as a witness. A high tribute was paid to the testimony of Dr. Dana and to his skill as representing the head of the medical profession in the county.

   In closing, Mr. Miller made a plea for a reasonable doubt in the face of unsatisfactory evidence of the murder of Frank W. Miller by the defendant; and in the face of the testimony of Dr. White and Dr. Dana as to the mental condition of the defendant. He urged that every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete to convict on circumstantial evidence, and he believed they would not be convinced that the chain was complete.

   Mr. Miller spoke for two hours and fifty-five minutes and made a remarkably strong address. Nothing that was material to the case was overlooked and everything that could be brought in to strengthen the plea was there.

FRIDAY AFTERNOON.

   It is doubtful if there was ever such a scene in the Cortland county court house as was witnessed there Friday during the noon recess. On the previous days of the trial it has been customary to permit those who desired to do so to remain in the court room during the noon hour, and many, especially ladies, have taken advantage of that privilege. They have brought their lunches and in not a few instances their work, and they have employed the time to advantage while listening to the evidence.

   Friday after the forenoon session it was decided to clear the court room so as to give all an equal chance to get in to hear the prosecution’s summing up in the Truck murder trial in the afternoon. This was far from agreeable to those who had good seats, but there was no appeal from the decision of this court, who in this instance was the sheriff, and out they went, and down the stairs. There they made a very sizeable company in the lower hall. They stood at the foot of the stairs waiting for a chance to dash back up stairs again.

   But they were not alone for others kept coming and soon the hall was filled to suffocation. They were packed in like sardines in a box. The ones at the rear of the procession tried to press forward and get nearer, seemingly assured that if they were only ten feet nearer the foot of those stairs their chance for a seat would be better, even though the same number of people were still in front of them. The ones in front were almost lifted off their feet and the most of them were ladies too. It required all of the force of Under Sheriff Hazard and Deputy Sheriffs Smith and Ryan to keep them back.

   At about 1:45 the officers began to let the people up the stairs, and then there was a mad rush. The officers tried valiantly to restrain the crow d but it was at first a sort of ship against a wave of the ocean. Ladies fell down over their own skirts in getting up the stairs. The officers kept shouting to the crowd to keep back, but it didn’t. There was a call that they were killing a woman by pressing her against a railing, but it didn’t matter. They were all bound to get in to that courtroom. Then the officers planted themselves in the passage way and by sheer force of strength held back the multitude and regained control of the stream of humanity.

   It didn’t take long to fill every inch of space upstairs, and all those who didn’t get in had to stay out. The prisoner himself had to be taken up the private stairway through the sheriff’s apartments to reach the courtroom as there was no getting through the aisles.

Attorney Edwin Duffey.

PEOPLE SUMMING UP.

   District Attorney Duffey had a highly appreciative audience in his final address to the jury, as did also Attorney Miller in the morning for the defense. Both were the subject of congratulations on all sides. The case has been tried for all it was worth by the attorneys and their counsel on both sides. It is hard to see how either could have brought out more. And they have been very fortunate in their presiding justice. Judge Sewell has been absolutely fair and impartial in his decisions as regards both sides. What he permitted for one, he permitted for the other, and what he refused for one he refused for the other.

   But the climax of the case came of course in the summing up, and here both attorneys distinguished themselves. It has all the time been felt as though the defense had an unusually hard task, for the evidence pointed so strongly to the guilt of the defendant so far as committing the deed was concerned that it could hardly be denied, and insanity is not a popular form of defense in a case of this kind. But the defendant’s counsel have made all they could out of the case, and the facts were most admirably put by Mr. Miller in his summing up. Perhaps the highest compliment that could be paid him is in saying that in his peroration his reference to the defendant was so touching as to bring tears to the eyes of the prisoner himself, and considering the fact that the prisoner was alleged to be insane that is saying a great deal.

   The summing up of District Attorney Duffey was most masterly. Stenographer Rose is quoted as saying that in the fifty-three murder trials which he has reported he has never seen its equal in the way in which the speaker clung to his evidence and arranged it in the form of a continuous chain with every link present. His manner before a jury is confidence inspiring and convincing, and he assuredly acquitted himself on this occasion with the highest honor.

   It was just 2:05 o’clock when Mr. Duffey arose and after the words “May it please the court” turned to the jury for the final address of counsel in the Truck murder trial. He began by referring to the care used in the selection of the jury; to their oath to render a verdict according to the evidence and to the responsibility that rested upon the shoulders of each of them. A dastardly, enormous crime, he said, was committed in Virgil on March 14 of last year, and it now remains for the jury to say who committed it, or at least to say whether or not this defendant did commit it. It is a matter of importance to our community to see that justice is done if it can be.

   The district attorney first detailed the movements of Truck during the week prior to March 14. Reference, he said, has been made to a motive for this crime. It is not necessary to show motive in a criminal case, but when it is present and evident it makes with the facts a formidable array. The motive in this case was the desire for gain. The plan was deliberate and premeditated. He said in advance that he wanted to hire a farm and to stock it. On March 8 he went to Miller’s home in Virgil to learn the circumstances, to look over the ground. So far as we know no violence of any kind was attempted at that time. On the Saturday before the crime was committed, March 11, he told his employer Blunden that he couldn’t work for him on Monday because he had got to go to Virgil to reclaim some stock that he had over there that had not been paid for. At the same time he made preliminary negotiations for renting a farm of Blunden north of Syracuse and said he expected to have some stock to put upon it. On the next day, Sunday, he borrowed a gun for the avowed purpose of shooting foxes, but in fact as we believe, for the purpose of protecting himself if he got in a tight place or of actually committing the crime with it. On Monday he told the man who came to request him to move from his house that he was going to Virgil after a horse and after his return he would be ready to move at any time. That afternoon he showed himself at Darius Allen’s inquiring for horses, and inquiring what horses Miller had. He spent that night with Miller. On Tuesday he was still in the vicinity looking for horses. After leaving Lowe and Homer in the woods at about 3 o’clock and saying that he was going to Blose’s for a horse and after starting off in that direction, he changed his course when out of sight for at 4 o’clock he was seen in the vicinity of Miller’s house. What was he there for? It was not dark yet, too early for any violence and Miller was not at home. Then he went to Blose’s. Reference has been made to the fact as an inconsistency in his action that he told Blose he had no money to buy horses. How could he have said otherwise, for had he not the next question might have been to produce his money to pay for a horse. After he got back to Homer he told about the horse he had brought back with him. What was all this for? Just laying the foundation for throwing off surprise and suspicion that he had the horse when he should be seen with it. It was cunning and foresight. And what was the motive? Desire for gain. He wanted to stock that farm. He got Miller’s horse; he loaded himself down with the proceeds of his act. He did take from the Miller house all the valuable portable property of his victim. It is fair to suppose that Truck took the maul you have heard described, forced his way into the house and waited for a chance to make way with his victim. Just how he struck him or when it is unnecessary for the prosecution to show.

   The district attorney then reviewed the proof of the identity of the remains; the clothing, the missing tooth, the maimed foot, the remains of the meal eaten found in the stomach. Then came a review of the evidence upon the question, did Frank W. Miller die before the fire occurred in his house and did he die by violence. In both cases the speaker deduced from the evidence an affirmative answer. The speaker characterized as purely speculative the statements of counsel for the defense that death came within an hour after supper and as not warranted by the evidence of the expert quoted, Prof. Orndorff.

   The one question now remains, did this defendant commit the crime. The evidence shows a motive, shows the defendant present, shows the defendant next day with his victim’s property in his possession.

   The district attorney ridiculed the theory advanced by defense, that Miller was kicked by his horse. “Kicked by his horse! Where? In his bedroom?” asked the speaker. You remember the testimony of the doctors that the blows which fractured the skull would produce instant insensibility. He was stricken in his own house. He was felled there in cold blood unable to take care of himself. Human agency committed that deed. What next? Ransacking the house, stepping over the dead body to search the trunk that stood by his side. Then another crime—a crime to conceal a crime. The house was set on fire. Three crimes: murder, robbery, arson. Then he waited till it was late enough to go undetected, as he thought. All that he did could have been done in an hour. He waited beside his victim till satisfied that everybody in the vicinity was in bed. Then he started his fire, hitched up his horse, locked the door of the house, and laden down with spoils started for home. He took chances and almost succeeded. Had it not been for the meeting at East Virgil and that those men of the neighborhood were there, had Mr. Lowe not had company and been up later than usual that house would have burned to the ground and no one would have known it till the next day. Bear in mind the lonely neighborhood with only one house in sight from Miller’s.

   The speaker traced the defendant from Virgil to his home in Homer. He called attention to the fact that Truck told the sheriff when arrested that he had left Miller’s house at 3 o’clock in the afternoon and that he did not change his statement in regard to the time till he had learned that Wm. Seamans had seen and recognized him on the road to Virgil, and then he changed it to 10 or 11 o’clock. Counsel for the defense had raised the question as to the unreasonableness of defendant’s wearing the clothes of the dead man on the next day, but evidence has been brought forward to show that Truck did not wear those clothes till he was ready to leave Homer on his way to Tully. Witness Hawley testified that he saw him wearing his old coat in Homer on Wednesday morning. The old coat was found rolled up in a bundle in the back of the wagon when defendant was arrested. He wore it till he got out of Homer. Clothes are not easily identified positively. Those would not have been but for certain marks of mending. The patch made from the m other’s cape of cloth different from the rest the defendant couldn’t know about. What about a watch? How should the defendant know about the private initials put in a secret place; also about the jeweler’s private mark when he had repaired it? How should he know that a watch could be positively identified? When he wore those clothes he was 20 miles away from the scene of the tragedy, with all traces leading to him destroyed, as he supposed.

   The district attorney then referred to the two letters sent out from Truck to Mr. Fassett and Mr. Witty. That is the defendant’s own confession, said the speaker. Do you notice how he refers to the mortgages given Wayland Spencer found in the trunk, one of $1,500 and one of $1,100? How did he get those facts unless he secured them from the documents themselves found in ransacking the trunk? And will you tell me that the man who wrote those letters and who remembered those figures so exactly for so long a time was either a lunatic or an imbecile?

   Attention was called to the testimony of the sheriff that when first confined the defendant read novels and other things; that custom continued till about the time of the grand jury when he suddenly claimed to Mr. Fasettt that he could neither read nor write. Was not that keenness as regards the commission of the crime? And that attitude has been continued ever since.

   Circumstantial evidence was next discussed and was shown when good to be better than direct evidence for, said the speaker, witnesses may lie, or may see things wrong. But if you have facts from various sources all put together you have incontrovertible evidence. A number of examples of circumstantial evidence were given; an apple on the ground. It fell from a tree. How do you know? No one saw it. We know it because apples grow on trees. It is circumstantial evidence. We went to bed last night. The ground was bare. This morning snow is on the ground. It snowed last night. How do you know? No one saw it. Why, there is the snow. That is the evidence. We see tracks of a horse and cutter going west along the road. We say some team has passed west along the street. How do you know? No one saw it. There are the tracks. It is better evidence than some one looking out, for the observer may be sleepy or tired or thick headed and not notice, but the evidence remains. That is circumstantial evidence and better than direct evidence.

   The district attorney then turned to a discussion of the evidence of the defense. He called attention to the fact that one must be laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act and that it was wrong. There must be substance to the defect of reason in order to have it figure. The one question is did he know what he was doing and did he know that it was wrong. As evidence that he did attention is called to these same telltale letters written to Fassett and Witty. Truck is the writer. Truck says “I killed the cuss;” “I am the guilty one.” Notice the word “guilty.” “I don’t want any one to suffer for what I done.” Isn’t that comprehension and appreciation of the nature and quality of the act, and that it was wrong? Are those the letters of a crazy man or an imbecile? Skill and cunning is sticking right out of them. Can you read those letters and say that John Truck did not know what he was doing on that 14th day of March, 1899?

   What was he doing on the Saturday before the crime? Working for Blunden. “I would like to take your farm,” he said. “I am going to Virgil to get a horse on Monday.” What did he get his gun for? Not to kill a man, as a crazy man would have said, but to kill foxes. What was he doing on Monday? He went to Virgil inquiring for a horse. What on Tuesday? Deceiving men as to where he was going; waiting for a favorable moment. The people in the neighborhood said that nothing in his appearance struck them as irrational. All said he was rational. Now on his return to Homer. His wife was gone. He could not start for Tully early Wednesday morning. Was it irrational for him to delay while looking her up?

   Now his acts at Miller’s house, were they the acts of one insane? Dr. Hamilton has testified to you that one who does murder under a defect of reason never adds to it plundering. That evidence has not been controverted. After this crime did he not select and did he not select well? Doesn’t it show that the defendant knew what he was doing? Doesn’t the fact of his placing the body in the room where it would be most burned; doesn’t his waiting till a late hour before starting for home show a good head? Where is the dementia, where the mania or the melancholia? One of the defense's experts says he had all of these three states, the other says he is insane at all times. Was he blue? Some of their witnesses have testified that he was on Monday mornings after spending a Sunday at home. What troubles may he not have had there to produce blues? What kind of insanity is it that doesn’t increase in twenty years, that permits a man to go about and do his work as usual? This is the kind of insanity you don’t see. The third period of this circular insanity was never heard of till after the defendant’s expert physicians had been here in court. Before it had been simply nervousness and melancholia. But when it appeared that alternating insanity would send a man to the insane asylum at once, then lay witnesses began to tell of the period of calm between the two.

   Two or three witnesses said he was irrational, but they could not say that he was devoid of reason. The theory of the law is that witnesses must describe in court the acts and conversations upon which they base their impressions of irrationality in order that you too as jurors may draw your own conclusions from the same. What irrationality is shown? He was never violent; never unreasonable; sometimes he forgot; he wouldn’t hitch up a horse once when it was another man’s business to do it. Dr. White acknowledged that big stories are not an indication of insanity, and that not even liars are insane. You have heard that Mr. Fassett sent his maniac up to Mr. Armstrong to run an engine. Doesn’t that show that Mr. Fassett trusted him? Philip Weingartner knew him for twenty-five years and worked with him and never saw any thing out of the way in him. So also with Mrs. Stevens for three years.

   Now as to expert witnesses. They are not to be laughed at, or scoffed at or ridiculed. After I had made up a hypothetical question as to the different things Dr. White had said were not essential and I asked him if taking all those things away from the original hypothetical question would he still consider it the same, he said it might make some difference in his opinion. I have no apologies to offer for such experts as Dr. Allison and Dr. Hamilton. Dr. Allison is the greatest expert on criminal insane in New York state. His testimony should carry great weight. Dr. Hamilton stands at the head of his profession in the United States if not in the world. He has an international reputation. Is he not the best expert the country affords? Did he not show that he understands his business? Could you ask for better skill? If so, I do not know where you would find it. Surely not in this country. His evidence must be given the greatest of weight. He told you there were no indications of insanity in this defendant. He told you how he knew. He told you that the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong. Dr. Hamilton says that a bad conformation of the head is not essential. Dr. White acknowledged the same thing.

   I have been criticized for swearing the witness Tompkins. I wanted to know what was going on in the jail. It was suggested by Dr. Allison who first saw Truck pass the note from Tompkins to Mr. Hyatt. Have you not seen Truck’s interest in the case as it proceeds? Did you not observe his emotions this morning when his attorney was summing up his case? Did you not see him laugh when I objected to Mr. Miller’s leading questions and when he replied that he had learned it from me and the judge said we were both pretty good at it?

   They have attacked the sheriff for interest in the case. Is it not right that the sheriff should do what he can to secure punishment for crime? But I leave it to you, would the sheriff try to swear a man’s life away? I leave it to you, would Sheriff Brainard stoop to such a thing?

   The climax of the district attorney’s address was reached when he replied to the insinuation of counsel that there was complicity between the witness Tompkins and himself, and his denial was terrible in its earnestness and power. How could Tompkins, he said, have learned the facts to which he testified except from Truck or unless Dr. Allison took them to him, or I did? This is a serious accusation. It is a terrible charge to bring against the prosecuting officer of your county. Could there be a prosecuting officer so base, so lost to all sense of decency as to create evidence in a criminal case? I say before God Almighty I never did it. I never said a single thing to him. The two letters from client to counsel have also been referred to as a trick on my part. I deny it in toto. I knew nothing about it till Dr. Allison told me of the letters he had seen passed. The state does not choose its witnesses. Where evidence is, there they must go to get it. I have tried to gather up every scrap of evidence I could find. Your sheriff has aided me in every way. I have never known a more efficient officer in Cortland county than Sheriff Brainard. I would not mislead you. If I have brought you to the knowledge of the facts in this case I have done my duty, otherwise I have not.

   This task of yours is an unpleasant one. The eyes of all the county are riveted upon you. Laws are enacted to guard person and property, but unless those laws are upheld, the whole matter is cheapened. You are not responsible for the consequences of your verdict. The law does not place that upon you, and you need not assume it. Was it wrong for the prosecuting officers to follow this case up a year ago? Should they have shrunk from doing their duty because of the consequences? Was it wrong for the coroner's jury to do its duty or the grand jury, or should they have shrunk from it because of the consequences? Would it have been right for me to let the prisoner go because I didn’t want to prosecute him? Would it be right for the court here to let the prisoner escape justice because he didn’t want to sentence him? You simply say did the defendant committed this crime with reason and knowledge enough to know what he was doing. If so, there is but one verdict. You have nothing to do with what comes after. Your duties are done after you have rendered a verdict. You are not responsible. There is the court of appeals if there is error. You are simply a part of the machinery of the law.

   The defense has made an appeal for sympathy. This is not a case for sympathy. There is nothing to be done but to render a verdict according to the evidence. If he did such a crime is he to plead for mercy at your feet? Sympathy only has its place with the governor. But if there were sympathy would it not be on the other side? Think of the mother who one year ago to-day at just about this hour sat beside the coffin of her son at his funeral, unable to even gaze upon his features for a last goodbye look because it was so badly burned. Think of the victim himself called before his Maker so unexpectedly in such an unprepared manner. Think of the brothers and sisters who are left. Yes, if there is to be sympathy it is on the other side. But I do not ask it. All I ask is justice. It would endanger the life of every one in this county if justice failed, if crime can go unfinished. Law does not ask for vengeance, but to make an example of the guilty one. Unless law is upheld justice becomes a farce. Take your time in making up your decision. Do not be hastened into effecting a compromise. Compromise is cowardice. Remember that every unpunished murder takes away from the safety of every man’s life.

   The district attorney closed at exactly 5 o’clock, having been speaking to a minute the time of Mr. Miller in the forenoon, 2 hours and 55 minutes.

   Judge Sewell then gave the charge to the jury. This is the judge’s first murder trial, and his voice trembled a little as he began speaking and he was visibly affected. The charge in full will be published later as it was a very able one. Several requests for the charge were made on both sides and granted, and at 5:45 exactly the case went to the jury.