, 1873-02-07
Argument Of the Motion for a New
Trial.
Judge Williams Decides that It Can.
not Be Granted.
The Murderer to Receive His Sentence
on the 18th Inst.

of Lake County, sitting at Waukegan, to. he AT
the arguments on the motion for new trial
made by his counsel on the previous evening,
and hare sentence passed upon him in accord
ance with the verdict Of the jury. The opening
Of the Court Was delayed for considerable time
beyond the usual hour, because OF the absence
OF the prisoner, who slept soundly through tho
night and far into tho morning. The Jail
ors report that he ate wonderfully
hearty breakfast for man in the peculiar, posi-
ton which he Is presumed to occupy. He
entered the court room and looked around upon
tho large number Of spectators, among whom
were many OF his relatives and friends, without
any apparent nervousness OF diffidence.
After ho had taken his seat, Mr.. Reed request
ed the Court to consider the motion for q new
trial.
Chief Justice Williams ordered it to be taken
up.
Mr.. Small, counsel for the defendant, briefly
called attention to the errors in the trial upon
which the motion was based, BE
thought the evidence as to- tho
drunken condition OF the prisoner too
hours before the killing should have been ad-
mitted.. It was not an easy matter to determine
the meaning Of the language Of the Supreme
Court on this point, but he beloved it was
maxim Of law that, where the fact Of drunken
ness at the time OF committing the murder could
be proven, the evidence on that point should be
admitted. A man who WAS stupidly drunk at
half-past 10 could not have been perfectly eober
at half-paat L. This was the case with Rafferty,
on the night when Ol1eara WAS kill
cd. The testimony Of Officer Madison Be-
dell with reference to the meaning OF the word
"pop," as used by the defendant in an alleged
conversation with him, was also objected to.
The police officer said he thought the word sig
nifed pistol or revolver. His testimony on that
point would be advisable, il such WAS the
general OF usual meaning Of the term, but, it
the person using tho word did not attach any
such Specification to it, it YVES not proper to
admit it. No objection was made to any Of the
instructions Of the Court except the one Which Which
the Court said that if the jury found the
prisoner guilty, it should say that he suffer
death by hanging or imprisonment in the Penl-
tontiarJ, the Court should have said that, if tue
aforethought. the crime was manslaughter. As
to the legality or illegality of the warrant which
Scanlon served upon Rafferty,, the counsel had
been driven to the conclusion, after conyersac
ton with several persons, that tho document
GERS like OMeara and scanlon we're aware that
such warrants wore unlawful: Testimony on
that point of sufficient import
2 enee e the case to ltt,+ Let it go BE-. BE-,
Horth fully aud heartily Taa agrecd with tbs
Court that men who were parties to the Issuance
of such warrants ought to be severely punished.
They should not be allowed to come into Court
and get rid of q man whom they hated on .tho
liered that prejudice against his client existed
in Waukegan. Eo believed that II the Same
jury were to try him over again, they would not
sentence him to suffer the seyerest penalty
known to the law. It was q aad fact
that, when murder cases are brought be-
fore honest and unsuspecting juries,
with them are brought forward by the prosecu-
ton, and are go colored and distorted as to have
undue weight. When tho Stato's Attorney
resounding nightly with the CRY OF murder, it
should not have had feathers weight with the
Jury. It would not have received any consid-
eration from the Court.
States Attorney Reed said he had nothing to
Say in answer to Mr.. Small.
Chief Justice Williams then replied to the
objections. As to the : exclusion OF evi-
dence: It WAS sought to t., be proven
by the defence that OMear1 vas
assisting scaalon to serve the warrant, knowing
it to be an unlawful document. It was claimed
that defendant should have the benefit of that
point, if it could be shown in evidence The
Court allowed the defence to enter on the proof,
but afterward excluded the testimony, because
narrant. n ram ~ scapon took tbe warrant when he was
u; r. 1anEs At ro1.crij Theirs was no
sr;den.s tst ~ T be- onanad # or knew ANYTHING OF
% It's contentss @ except m from suspicion, Thore WAS
1ts oidenoo' thof ha nnanad + hafore rco1inp
= ~ taG1 fo RaTerfv or that O',1aara knew any
th;ne at ali about It. It was necessary to bring
that rarrant nrae tn O'aIesra beforo the testi
.oang r.aao cancerninc Il could be admitt ed The
mo1t 5 ,a1 o;ran fe n,stter SIMS raf1action and
~ t1,at ~ teat;n,onv shnnld not he alowad to
~ e4It ~ 'tu r,,r r. %on hevn heen donhtfm1
p ~ .nc at hast Tha same r,linr would he
.oada ~, ,1ndcr sim;iar circnmstancos. A to
the witngss' interpretaton of the word !: pop n
IT, ttiSaa "tIiss ttat + m,esnt n;stol Thu Gonrt
thongIt ho that ~ WA comnetont testimony in
dene5dent Of tho testimony Of tho Wit
ness. the turv could have given no
nther internrotat;on. Certainly the Word could
nnt haro heen rneant far shnt. As to the in
gtructions; The Court gave all tho instructions
asked fnr hv tha defance. In addition it cayo
an instruction of its own with reference to tho
an instruction that tho hypercritical reader
would not saw was incorrect. The Court gave
the instruction because there had been no in
Of he verdict. Il would not have been