The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1873-02-15

" THE OTHER SIDE"
BY tuEAN.
PresId 'nt pi IA, tYai-.r- luieriatlvI,al l mon

CHAftLH AJAX
Following Reivtsou Mrs. Tatam Maho
ney Wa, examined Iu cnlri. and then cross
examined alter this manner
Lnnspere You say you have not seer
or heard of your husband since the night
Uf the fire
Witness lcryin.l Never saw or heard
ot hlm since.
Lluspere Did he say anything when
you last saw him about leaving the city
cxructedly
Witness No sir. he said he would be
back soon he left the house about seven
O'clock
The prosecution seemed pleased at this
answer. and the friends of the accused
seemed equally depressed BY it,
Llusprre ~ hen your husband left
home did he have on a pair OF shoes
Council .for >Jate.-Ne object this
question can have 10 bearing on the case
IAnspere 'risIngl May 1t please the
court. lt has always been held, and will
not be denied by ne. that clrcumstancial
evidence Is competent 70 convict murder
cr. and II Is Just ds necessary to the wei
fare vt socIrt. that such should he the case,
As 10 Is necessary thar TINS m1nstrous exc
cradle crime should be punished. but
herein | feel bound ID make a distinction
that the learned counsel for the prDsecu-
tinn wish to ignore Then ! claim that it
should first ~ All hr proven hv dirert tes-
timuny. that the r.rpit, isIrt are the
bodies ot the men charged rn the IudIct-
ment. to have been murdered ny thu prls-
uuvr The prosecution have uudravored
III prove THAT uur rf the -trh.l, i-iirtt was
the body ~ Tttan Nshnuey ana this they
claim Or vii claim to have proven by a
watch, which IL j. claimed belonged % the
SAID Mahouey Ma in - tar a, lr served
their purpose. the pr'srcurl. has a limit
tyd. ss % Principe 90 laN. thar ARTICLES Of
rslineut are legal evidences II identity
lu tins | fully agree WIth the learned cuun-
m question was not the body 81 Tatam
Mahpney, w. clam the same rl-ht u make
articles Of RAIN, nj legal evidence ii lden-
uncauun.
Counsel for state Your Honor
judge lnterruptnyly) The question Is
proper and competent, Sharply let the
tusl proceed
Witness Ny husband never wore shoes
to my know ledge.
An apostate member of the union was
produced nv the State to prove that Ar
bvght had threatened Tatam Mahoney's
lie. But IN the cross examination. he
had To ADMIT that Arby .ht merely SAID he
would expose MahOneys treachery
(See Chapter AND Tins witness Was also
compelled tu admit that m testitylng as he
dId, he had violated a moral oath. His
testimony did not mJure the efence in
any material manner.
1t took tNo days to examine IN chief and
crpss-exanIne the witnesses for the State
The Identification Of the bodies was made
a special point. Much time ot course Was
wasted H arguing technical points Of Law.
and deciding upon the adnlsslbllIty and
relevancy ~ direct and leading questions
lhc counsel tur the State manifested an
acumnuy rarely rvncyd by the members ot
THE har, hu- Nhru thr prosecution had
closed, b uJs generally conceded by the
balance ut thr hlr Nhu had listened ID the
trtI than tnrir git~y VA considerably ob-
fl-rttrl hv ir-a points. which few were
ahIy rp understand MI l.ansppre Was a
ynniig lawyer. clear headed, tull NJ common
sens ami HIm'n ltN. 1ud every body al
mlttrd that he hal managed the cross-ex-
animation with admirable tact. ability
shryW iuy,S and skill HIS motto was keen,
trruchaur hrrvIty.
ou the thlri ia Of the trial, after The
Court had hccn opened. he arose and ad-
dressed the Court IN substance as follows :
" May 1t please your Honor; Gentlemen
of the jury We are called upon to reply
e. oh. a
part, upon couJectural, presumptive and
improbable testimony. Facts have besn
proven, We admit. but when they have
been placed under the eve Of practical
analysis, or when viewed abStractiy. they
show no evidence ~ the commission ~
a crime. Circumstances have been proven.
also, but they are So remote. that they can
have no bearing on the case before YOU
Ia the first place, then, We deny that the
prisoner has committed A murder. and ia
the next place We deny than a murder has
been perpetrated at all We also DENY
that the prisoner Is guilty of arson We
IN Ike manner deny every charge in the
indictment. and every statement made by
the prosecution that IN manner reflects
upon the prisoner We shall prove to you,
Gentlemen Of the Jury, that 1t was abso-
lutely impossible for the prisoner to hire
the building III the space of time that
elapsed during his going in and coming out
Of the shop, unless he lgnited the naphtha
placed there, and We shall prove that he
had no knowledge Of the existence of such
a fluid in the shop, and that no one knew
Of its existence except Revalson, his clerk,
the foreman and the man that earted it
there We shall also prove that the prison
er had no knowledge If the self-shutting
door, leading from the office to the shop,
and that it was impossible for him to re-
enter the office from the shop where it is
claimed that the ire originated We have
a ready shown that the bodies fou 4 and
to be those uf Mahoney and Mliler,
had been dead at least a day before the
tire occurred. In the evidence we shall
produce We intend to prove that these
bodies died natural death and not a