New-York tribune., 1874-07-02
THE COUNTS.
A MURDERER's SPEEDY TRIAL.
GILL, THE SLAYER or SULLIVAN. ARRAiGsED-l
TRIAL IN ONE DAY


TRIAL IN ONE DAY.
In the Court of General Sessions yesterday.
Recorder Hackett presiding the OF Mark Gill; In
dictcd for numbering Mortimer Sullivan. was called.
ExAssisant District Attorney Fellows OF counsel for
the defense said We have not been able since last Mon
day talk with the witnesses for the defense n ths
case not therefore, well prepared to de-
fend this prisoner would have been had moro tms
been given Nevertheless. We hold ourselves bound
by promise OF Monday, aud II the Is pressed
will go aud do the best
Recorder Hackett said that, In his opinion. the de-
fense had had sufficient time to prepare for trial. aud
that the be proceeded with. EIDistrictAt-
torDey Garvn the leading counsel for the Defense said
that he would accept jurors the first Ia called.
provided they had expressed opinion a. TO the guilt
innocence OF the accused. The work OF mpaneiDg
jury then entered upon, and after excusing nyo
who had conscientious scrupes about the inicton
OF capital punishment, and three who had formed an
opinion concerning the guilt or innocence OF Gill; tho
following jury obtained: John Boyle, Frank u.
Whitfield. Simon Abrams. Henry g. Denson. Edward W.
Prentice, j James Purcell Arnold Strauss, Frederick
W. Foeller George Pierce, Phillip Cantin. ir. Isaac p.
Greenthsl, Joseph NJ Cohen. jr.
In his brief opening for the prosecution Assistant
DlstrctAttorney Lyon said that he proposed to show
hat the murder Of Sullivan by Gil, in barroom near
Murray and Greenwichsts.. as cool and premedi-
tated q murder committed, and that Gil
shot Sullivan because he had beaten him In throwing
dice.
Frederick sceher the first witness called by the
prosecution, and the following is the substance OF the
story he told On June 49, tho day of the murder su-
van and Gill Iuto barr0om In Leonard
st. about 8 o'clock q. N. both OF them
were little under the influence OF liqsor.
and they had a scufe; after 1t over Sullivan went
into the road. and Gill to me and asked me for
knife which behind the bar refused to give ID
to him. and he left The crossexaminaton developed
dax, hafo
sideraby the influence OF liquor; that the day
Of the murder he began drink whisky at o'clock ia
the morning. aud that he is who lets liquor alone
for a long time, and then goes on a spree"
John p wellbrook, the bartender in Meyers saloon az
No. 269 Greenwich-st where murder occurred test
fed: On the morning Of June 10, sullivan and Oil came
into the saloon and had two drinks they then talked
little about yacht-racng aud after while Gill slapped
Sullivan in the face, but Sullivan did not resent 1t he
only laughed; Gill then went out and STAYED abou hlf
an hour when he came back, Sullivan asked nm ~ no
drew pistol and fired snot in the floor, when
sullivan Sad ts NOW G y y0f ,Snow S99 'eQSs as
with you" Sullivan tnen threw the dice on TIE counter
sea de d saea nI t thg Ps1 up from TO va5 When no
fired; sullivan fell and died in about three minntes as
he had fired Gill ran OUT crowd followed mm
The examination elected nothing new except
that both sullivan and Gill were under the influence OK
IT, F. Meyer, the son Of the proprietor of the saloon
where The murder took place, and Michael Slay, wac
corro6oratod wellbrooks testimony.
AT this point Mr. Fellows said that the defense would
concede that Sullivan was shot and killed by GIL and
DistrictAttOrney Phelps replied that, In view OF the
concession, no would not introduce further testimony
relative the actual killing. lie then called Peter
COrDit, who testified: About O'clock on tho morning
Of June 10, Gill came to my gun store. at No 29 Green
wich-st, and bought pistol Policeman sheldon tod
the heretofore published story OF Gs arrest and tho
prosecution rested.
Without making any opening remarks 70 tne Jury Mr.
Fellows at begah The examination or the witnesses
for the defense The first Que called was Daniel Mu
lane, who testified to the effect that Gu, whom pe Dad
known for 20 years, was oceasl0haIly IN tho
habit Of getting drunk, but mat ne was
not, general thing. addicted to the use
of Intoxicating liquor taat ne was drunk iqr sew
drunk the day he killed him Mrs Ann Tucker test-
fed same effect and Mr.. Fellows said that that
to @1' offer. f He then i'1'. argued to tho jury
that because Gin had killed Sullivan when no
laboring under delirium which, though caused by
an mmoderate OF intoxicating liquor, he guilty
only OF murder in tue second degree "GiI," SAID he
of rage and without any premedatiOn, he drew his
pistol and shot the his friend when they
the law, be held oe guilty OF murder In the first
degree That great and serious crime has been COM
should only be found guilty OF murder Ia the second
uiGi1H IL bis bricfeply to Mr. Fellows DlstrctAtOrney
Phelps claimed that all the circumstances of the case.
as shown by the evidence the conclusion that
Gill deliberately killed sullivan, aud that, therefore, the
verdict should be guilty OF murder In the first degree
After" said he. "G and sullivan had been together
In the saoon aud after he had slapped Sullivan IN the
face he deliberately out and oought pistol,
turned, and in reply to Suyan's question, Can You
beat thatP he drew the pistol, placed 1t at sullyans
head and shot him. II that does not show prenedita
then there il such thing premedtatOn IN he
commission of crime" Mr.. Phelps also argued that it
had been shown that Gill drunk That he
deprived OF his reason.
At the conclusion OF Mr. Phepss argument, Recorder
Hackett briefly charged the jury that the question or
them TO determine whether not Gill deliberately,
and with premeditation, k1ied Sullivan and in speak
ing upon the question of premedltation he called the
attention OF the jury to the fact OF GPs goBg OUT
obtaining pistol. and returning and doing the kiug,
and asked them 10 consider that fact we'll III deermln
ing whether Gill acted with GOODNESS and deberatton.
In conclusion Recorder Haekett said When a man
has, by the long continued OF intoxicating liquor,
entirely destroyed his reason, he should not be held
responsible for done after his has been
petely and hOpelessy detnroned but cannot agree
with the counsel IN MS statement that occasional drunk
enness Is any excuse for acts done when drunk.
The jury retired at o'clock. and at o the Recorder
sent word to them that he going nome, and that III
they agreed upon verdict before 10 O'Clock they could
send for him. and he would and the verdict
At that hour the jury sl out and the Court waA
adjourned until this morning.