New-York tribune., 1870-05-10
THE MCFARLAND TRIAL.
TMENTY-FOURTH DAY.


eral Sessions CourIooa. The attendance was large.
Mr. Graham spoke about four hours and at the close Of
mis- argument the Court adodrned until this morning at
II O'clock
District Attorney Garvin will up to-day, and tho
Recorders charge viii probably be delivered this after
noon or tomorrow.
Mr. Graham opened his argument upon the general
theory of the defense that when the act Of shooting
pcrperacd the defendant in state of insanity and
consequently of moral irreSponsbllity.
Mr. GRAHAM's ARGUMENT.
Mr. Graham began with dissertation upon tho theory
Of temporary sudden insanity, the purpose being
to show that, while Mcfarland might have
been sane ordinary affairs, he clearly
mad the main point. One of his chief points
was to show that there was premeditatiOn in the
meeting of Mcfarland and Richardson the day Of tho
shooting. Mr.. Graham's introduction was elaborate
and wound up in this way:
ABOUT PISTOLS AND POLICEMEN.
THE theory Of Mr.. Grahams argument was 10 show
Temporary insanityl You viii readily perceive,
II the pistol missed fire, his own HE Wouu
Of THE TRIBUNE would have turned upon him, and he
would have died instantly. Another thing desire 10
tho bullet of the injured husband takes eect-and re-
gard that strong moral lesson fol often read the
eudeavOring to arrest desperate characters In some
instances policemen will surprise burglars when eneased
Gaping with their Plundcr and in attempting 70 arrest
succession policeman and unless you suppose they
were in coats OF mail, impervious To attack how
upon the principle that SOME unseen hand
turns the bullet OF. l have often myself
been strck with the miracuousncss of the escape of
policemen under such circumstances; but IN every IN
stance where frenzcd husband sets about shOotg MS
man he succeeds and generally fetche the Dusl-
ne~; there 10 be perfect certainty about the
matter from which there is no escape, thus showing IN.
extreme moral justice Of the act Mr. Graham argued
for long time upon the insanity theory, on which the
defense reIes.l ne continued L. A.. .. .,,.
To have brought that marriage would have Of neces
sity placed MIS- Calhoun before TINS Court anu JS ~ ~
such manner as She must have been perieeuy rHded
and with view 10 keep her BACK they dd not uarc W
go into the reason why Mrs Mcfarland now bears the
name q Richardson; ana submit 10 you' on u'e & ear
denCc that appears to be nothing more or less tan
the mistress OF Richardson, because they have not SHOWN
the hrst marriage was ahnulleo. IneS nave 10y eo.o
the proof nor have they permitted us u go INTO ~
was never exoneratod from that marriage she now
bears the name a who say was her parainour,
other important omission is thls They did not snow that
Mr.. Mcfarland earned dollar from the time she
ing the argument that she was supported by chaIdoh
the wages and price of her submission 10 MN lHere
is some evidence that she writing Tor some
periodicals hut the evidence amounts 10 nOnns IO
does not show that she earned anything; and by tins
commission indianapolis she was living at the rate
SIS pr week. and yet there was no source nom winch
She cod derive Thai money except from the purse of
Richard SON the fact. Another of those out
ofplce gestions to which desire TO call attention Is
ths~aud desire 10 cali attention TO il now, while it is
just in my mctnorythat is, the attempt TO mpeach Mrs
Callahan of Jersey City by showing that Sue dldnt see
Mrs Nj CFarand at the house old Mr.. Gilbert between
the lsth Of and the 1St of October 1862 main,
tam she did. Mrs Callahan swears that Mrs. Mcfarland
at Old Mr.. GDerts at Jersey City, on and on ron
the Ish August the lt of October 1863 We showed
and ash the attention OF the Court and jury to IT, that
She had her little boy Danny with her that sho Was
galy dressed and wore large diamond ring on her
torefugr Although they have called four persons 10
Mrs. Mcfarland was not there, no one dares
to swear Fanny Tas not sha %'
dress III silks and wear large diamond rlng on her
finger there Ought have been evidence OF tat
cross . ANIMATION for the reason that Mrs. Callahan
Danny, heard of Danny until TINS period,
also You win remember that she swears this was the
female she at this house between the iotn Or
August ana the LIST of October, 1862 which she saw
the Wednesday week before she was eAdHilnuu
pretense that the two women are not the same Now,
the way account for that is this: that tere was
N game OF hde-andg goseek going in that house; that
ard.ln and this we're ensconced together; put
thai they were in that house just certain you sit
i~re III is stated Richardson there, but IL was at
tomped be proved that she was not; but il is very
possible supPosing there was some KIND OF latent W u u
d rstandn by which her presence was NOT 10 od d H
ygcd by the inmates Of the house they cOntiYed 10
keep her presence secret There Is Rotns tnaC mas
been TO in this case on the part OF the prosecution
10 show Mrs Mcfarland did not dress IN silks pre-
csely as Mrs Callahan ana 'naH s NJ ~ JI
diamond ring on her fore-tnger mat MIS- Cal
ceament there is beyond doubt and that she saw hte
Danny there and made his Acquaintance Is ust as GER
ested witness and has reason whatever for stating
what she knows is not strictly true.
shooting on the 25th Of November 1899 You will find
that the evidence for the prosecution leaves ii in very
IL left argue that you will take your own presump-
tons a. 10 what the occurrence vs rather Than the
affirmative evidence Of the prosecutOn All the wit
for the prosecution in the interest Of The
TRIBUNE establishment-there is no need OF minclng
words here. The whole civilized world has aTraigned
THE TRIBUNE office for its connection in this matter
Whether there is actual connection is a different
thing but in the consideration OF the civilized world 1t
Is less implicated and 70 eX0nerae the ONCE
from the stigma attached to that Identification is fair
to presume that all who connected with 1t came
forward to testify under strong motive You viii per-
ONCE
than any other because Of its identification III tins
matter Now Mr.. King principal witness for the prose-
cuton who had pistol in the hands of Mcfarland,
says he what he thought to he pistol That goes to
show that he didn't this occurrence He has dreamta
good deal Of what he has testified TO- He had not paid
any PARTICULAR attention to MeFasland lie was @ not
and but for the explosion of pistol he never would
Mr. FrOhnan nothing OF the occurrence; for when
Richardson in to inquire for his papers, he turned
Mr. Carver the third witness did not know Mr. McFar
land there, but looked up i'll time TO see him move
at the time his firing OF the pistol Mr. Watson says
the first thing that attracted ms attention was the report
fhis case we saw he did fire the pistol but fred in such
a state Of mind 10 DO accountable for the firing;
and ths testimony goes to show that the prosecution Is
it did not occur precisely is insisted IT occurred ON
the part Of the prosecution. You nave therefore,
this part Of the case is left to your nfrences
as to what the OF this occurrence was Another
matter for you 10 bear IN mind Is this: lat no one rom
Tn TRIBUNE Office, one from the staon-house, no
one from any place whatever, proves the mental cOnd
tion Of Mcfarland the day OF the shooting, on the
part of the prosecution Now, gentlemen, Mcfarland
had associates in business There were other
clerks the office which he attached beside Mr.
Coughn and not OF these is produced for the pr-
pose showing that he not in that condition from
the 22d Of November stated In the testimony OF MI
COughn down TO 81 o'clock the evening Of the shoot
ing They only call captain of police they not
only call policeman from the statiOnhOuse-n0 magls
trate before whom he was called on the following morn
ing and by whom he committed-no police clerk
who made ont his commitment-but they don't call a
associate from the office TO which he was attached
for The purpose Of showing that during the period men