, 1874-01-27
His Case Comes Up in the Su-
preme Court.
Arguments or D1eSsrs, Small and
Reed.
The Question Of lntimidatlng a 1ury
Considered at Length.
Mr. Small Insists that His Client can
Only Be Convicted Of Man
slaughter,
Tho Court Tnkcs tho Natter Under Ad.
yisement.

4hO NVuAb AHhCS lUG N1llIlGr AL
yisemcnt.
ARGUMENT FOR RAFFERTY,,
speciat Dispatch to Tho Chicago Tribune.
spnlsar1EID, ILL.,, jan. 20. 1874.
Tho Naf1orty caso camo up before tho Suprom
Court this morning, and waa argued by Mr.. Z
a. Small for tho plaintiff In error, and by ATr
Rced for tho people. I aond A1r. snall's argu
ment in full, aui an abstract Of that Of Alr
Rood. which has alrendy been published.
The following, is the argument mado by Mr.
Small tor his client, the plaintiff III error:
1MrEAon1No hoANLAss EVIDENCE.
On tho 6rst trial Of this cause. III tho court below,
defonso was atcptcd, except upon the point TINT th
teason Of drunkenness, to comprehenl tho act Wit
which ~, hc was charged but ~ tue evidence bcarin
before tho second frial il vas ascertanet TINT th
warrant upon which officers scanlan a,d oA1eara hut
IN connodton with tho ruling Of Ills Court in rou
ton 70 thu question Of Irankenness, 70
On the first trial for tho prosecution. who on tht
secoul tria added to bis testimony tho only facts
contained m III thu record tedtng to prove express nal
Daidgoport policemen, and mato 10 ono OF their own
number i; a most manifest iuveution to meet tho
thu end designed for 1t by multiplying tic proof Of
dtunkenness an, therefore, The testimony relattYu
bal, ~ Oh the ars tho plaintiff in error was prao
7auy Without a dufc1so.
These fae.s are known to Tho Court, and respect.
fully submit TINT they should any reluctance
which may be entertained with 10 disturbing
hr. vordct r,sctisa!ly tis was the first trial q
corzoborael tesmony Of perurad witness, or il such
1ncorroboratcl testimony I" il co,ted with auspcon
trial. Tnis j. consistent viii nstlee and aSlaa aa
The authority Of this Courtiu tho caso Of Gibbons v,
es 81 pfG' fSs s II H. m p2o.esa s tpp0, ws,. omo
scaulan, committed perjnrtee 80 wilifu1 and
s sssr Tint tint '4Sse osy wa0 as Ike tho @ TRY lid
observe them. Thcse parl'rtes occurred repeatedly,
both in his direct aud aexan3naol, aud ihs jnry'
aeni'na ths clear mpeaehn.ent by tic short.1and
writer who produced aud read his former testimony
doubtless taled tu the erun falsy OF the ,,,aI
The following IL example Of this deliberate aud Viii.
full evasion and falsehool:
Q:-%ero you looking for Tho aefclsdant shas
Al was
Q.-Were you not boih looking for him?
Al got tfo warrant for hi'n and was told ii aeon
Q.-Wcre you not both locking for him?
Q-Dii You not tesify, on tis list tral: IL WSro
Looking al oyer for him, and 'es could not ind hlm7"
Q.-Dld you not say TINT on The last trial?
Al say was looking for him nlyssif; Of course
o'Meara went with MO along the ueat every place
Q.-Then you wcro looking for him togcther9
Ale WIS aloug will Hle. had warrant for the
Q.-llaye you not been told, within tho last two
hours not to answer thut question: unless you were
A.-No, don't think wus.
Q.-Dfl yun have conversation With the SsAteA At
torney within tie last hour aud half at Ills xon In
.ns hote IN which he told you not to answer that
A.-No, don't think was. -
Q.-Wore yon not told by the State's Attorney. with
considerable oaphaaH that you was very poor weHs
nbont these matters Z
,,Q-So. slr had . sonyersation With him. within
going round together.
On thc former ;.. tra!s s:aan testified, In hs direct
warran for the delcnunnt; We looked III over ior him.
Il is seen BY tho above extract from ha testimony
that he now dehss THY lat this false wretch III do
e anst o s enr az es u ~ mysa Is ea Sa
n; i il f. assss sssy on hs tozner
Lis ssd xea IL wa was !sI sio a'Si Ta ass
thla testimony proving that oaIeara wns aiding in
tle arrest yet scanlan now that this is falso
the shorhsnd wyf nes q The the "s testaony On
the last trial 1t TINT Oh the day before the last
trial, scaalan ana H. superior olleor, Hood, wsnt
not only succeeded in removing tic place where o.
Meare stood 10 pont pearly foar feet from tho door;
cuon tesiel Ut tho ast tral Tor the defense and re
Jumped aud placed Ills back against It. AN'&7
Therefore Ecaulan now denies ali lis f,aa aworn to.
fore because bis for ner evidence sLowe The lomicl,
10 bo auslangltcr and Il, WIS neipssury as lie nrass
tho Btateb Attorney Officer Hood md thIs thcIr In
prayed instrument believed to 1nasa ths t,,c resMt
IN verdict of murder and te tent nsnslfv nnt
Ills 1nauitcs,iy truo3 NS''A f''A'''' - A''
MAssLAuourEn NOT Munprn.
II this otrcuEe rua ,nansnunhtnr. and not murder
RI shown by lie testimony furtbnr snl1n tint Il
the clear duty Of THU Court 10 to declare To aay at
3 man sLali hang uon evidence tlat establluhea raso
Of maualaHMor only, simply bocauus au unaccol.ntG-
bic aud ilfnoua eanor demands IT, u for the Court
o sss
ed dlArcspec. Ia making thia statement but cannot
forear 10 say t4t much Of ths respeot aud honor
which lbs sunreme Court commanas. rtsts in its nowcr
the flna .fbiter q law which aioct personai and
1esieet and confidence Of tho people.
What would history say of The Court which,
having once deliberately declared llom{ciJn |
to be granddaughter and not murder. upon
certaln staie Of facta. should ncr.
NIT tho accused to ba Afterwards convjnIo1 and ,!
for murder, Upon substantially tic same facs3 Wod
1t o regarded NJ sufficient Justification that It was