The Wichita city eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1872-1883, 1874-07-02

thing in that building or in the posses.
sion of these young men that would
induce a robbery and murder. There
| is but one conclusion and that is, that
| Winner set fire TO the building. AL
| these circumstances seem to prove
| this. Now we come to McNutt and
his part, and il seems that the coun-
sells whole theory admits that Winner
was the only guilty party, and
that McNutt was the enc conspired
against. There is q strong and cog.
nant train of circumstances that point
directly to McNutt's completely. Nc.
Mutt was a good painter. lie and
| Winner concluded to come to Wichi-
ia, just subsequent to which he took
out policy OF 5000 upon his life in
favor of the lady sitting before you,
| whom McNutt claims was his wife,
but whom it appears really was mis-
tress. No doubt the counsel for ,ie.
Tense will try to show that this " oman
and Winner are the ones who put up
this job land that McNutt was the poor
victim. We find when this policy was
taken out that McNutt and this
woman were married, the next day at.
ter which McNutt starts for Wichita
i'll company with this boy, who wa.
no painter. What object could he have
had in marrying this woman who he
had been living within If he is that
modest, high-toued, honorable gentle.
man that they have proved for him.
| why this action! On the oath of De.
cember we find hun depOsiting-ou
that particular day-a package OF
money which he had been carrying fol-
nearly two months. with Mr.. Scott
the hotel keeper. Why did he want
to exhibit and deposit that money on
that particular day after having car.
ried it around SO long? In the even.
ing the defendants both appear at the
hotel, and Winner lets ii be known
that he knows that McNutt has money
in the safe. How does that coincide
with the assertion of McNutt that he
aud Winner are at outs. Now comes
the purchase of laudnum by McN.ti,
and then his going back and getting
his money after having it on deposit
only few hours-toOk it out before
witnesses, one of whom was Winner,
and takes pains to show that the pack
age did have money in it. All o. this
was to show, that i'll case he was miss
ing that night, that it might be be-
lieved that he had large amount of
money on his person. Then his sct-
ting up out of bed and going wi,
and buying a new cheap hat at ten
O'Clock at night. And that with hi
mind full Of suspicious, US he claims.
against Winner, and the monte unon,
he goes and takes two drinks Of wins
XIV aud dose of laudnum, lets the
lamp burn and goes to bed-thrOw ing
himself completely in the power ul
the men he pretended to dread, is pre-
posterOus No, the whisky anu .aud-
mum were bought for Sewer. Who
was that very hour OH his road TO
Wichita where he was to be sacrificed
There remains no doubt that a MUIR
der was committed; no doubt that
Sewer was the victim; no doubt that
Winner was connected with, anu that
McNutt was his accomplish, the mo-
tive for all of which was the $4,000
insurance money. The marriage shows
that as well as every subsequent move
of the parties. Then McNutt's route
when he left here, aud his stopping
right within the neigbborhood OF his
wife's parents shows that he expected,
as soon as she got the insurance money,
to be on hand to help divide it,
Mr.. Sluss closed ut noon, having Oc-
cupied about two hours and twenty
minutes.
Judge II. NJ. Ruggles, of Emporia,
who bad conducted the defense open
ed upon the part of McNutt. lie saiu:
MAY it please your honor and gentle
men of the jury, it becomes my duty
to address you in behalf of the unfor-
tunate Y oung man arraigned here. say
unfortunate because it is an unfortu-
nate position tor any person to be
placed in, be he guilty or innocent.
We have felt ever since the commence
ment of this trial depression owing
to and arising from the strong prcju-
dice of the people of this city against
this defendant. | felt that each and
every one of you, disclosing as you
did more or less knowledge of the cir
cumstances surrounding this case.
ought not to sit on this jury, but the
court thought otherwise and we had
to submit. You have taken solemn
oath before God that you would give
this unfortunate Young man Il fair tri.i
upon the evidence aduced and rende.
YOUR verdict accordingly. The nature
of the crime charged is of So bastard
". heineous and terrible feature that
if my cliant is found guilty of it lac
should expect no sympathy at your
hands. and we do not ask it; vet, let
me beg of you not to convict him upon
mere floating rumor, but hold the state
to the law, which says that every ma
tcrial allegation shall be proved be-
yOnd reasonable doubt. The law
presumes every man innocent until
proven guilty, and it devolves upon
the state to prove every material cle-
ment or you must acquit. | expect to
show you that he is not only prcsump-
lively innocent, but innocent beyond a
doubt.
(Here Mrs. McNutt broke down ~
CRYING, and tears coursed down the
face of McNutt.)
do not mean to take up Your time
in needlessly talking about matter, OF |
which there is no question. As to the
burning Of a building and that \ bod (
was found in it, is not denied And /
that these things occurred IN Wichita /
Oh the night of December oath, 1874. /
is not disputed.
The state CHI argos that there livel II 1
sne time one w. w. Sewer, that said 4
mau is now dead, and that he was
burned to death in that building. You /
ire 10 decide whether, in the first (
place. any such crime was ever really /
without reference to who
lid it. We deny that they have even
proved that Sewer was ever burned,
,r that he is even dead now. No
mark. feature. trinket or anything
ound went to identify the body
IS being that of Sewer. Who Ia,
worn, directly or indirectly, to the
IDENTIFY of that body! No one. Hus
AN YOU say that j; was the body 81
sewer in the absence of any evidence
hat il was him. The state must es-
ablish the Identification beyond every
ea,onable doubt ito n moral certain
Y. The state charges death by burn
ny. Surprising the body found was
'eyier's. then are YOU satified bcyoni
reasonable doubt that he was Killed I
" burning. aud if so. how are yo so
dtIsucu- ~ aiA'hIph ~ sb'W ibdi 7
e was probably poisoned or drugged
nth whisky, if they had any proof I
hat Sewer wa. really burned 10 DEATH
here is no evidence whatever TO show
hat the body found was killed by
urning. The county attorney deals {
! fallacies and conjectures and asks {
: to show who this was if no. Sewer, {
nd how he came to be killed! The I.
ttorney showed that he himself enter .
lined grave doubts, which was equiv
lent to an aband comment OF the case. ]
ie attempts 10 throw the burden of |
roof upon the part of the defense,
here the law says it shall not re.t. I
hey must show, before they can get Q
verdict, tina; conspiracy did exist
oppose all the acts of Winner were I
at OF the case. wouldn't YOU return d
.rdict in two minutes Of mot guiltyF >