The Wichita city eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1872-1883, 1874-06-11

ut ~ w IuucI At IVPSh- 81
blame the county attorney for not
reading these dispatches. AS they were
of no manner of account as evidence.
lie also read telegram from Sewer
saving that he would come down on the
afternoon of the 24tl, Of December.
He then reviewed the testimony OF
Ham and others, showing how loose 1t
was. Sewer was always drunk when
he had money, and when he got twelve
dollars from Copson, of Topeka, he in
all probability got OH a drunk and
never came to Wichita. Mr.. Ladd, the
conductor, had testified that he rccol-
lected no such man coming down Oh
the train, when it was known that Sc
vier was very odd and marked char
actcr. Mr.. ltichey, who was on the
platform that night, saw 10 such man
get off the train, and it is very strange
that the Richeys should not have no
ticed Winner, if he ever went to the
depot. Don't try this man, for his
life, upon mere suspicion. The county
attorney dwelt too much upon the
words suspicious circumstances"
The testimony showed conclusivclv
that the body taken out of the fire on
Christmas morning was much larger
than that of Sewer. He told of differ
emt trials where innocent persons
were condemned 10 die upon mere
suspicious and circunstantial evil
dence. 1t is better that fifty guilty
parties should escape than that one i'll
nocent party should suffer upon cir
cumstantial evidence. said the great
Mathew Hale. "A. 10 the testimony
of VIM. Smith he had shown that Smith
had made great mistake. The paint
brush testimony had nothing in it. As
to the Identification Of McNutt's body
BY Winner, the defendant had never
said that he Unidentified the body. What
Winner did say was more TO show his
innocence than his Guilt. AS to the
conflicting testimony between Mise
Fardy aud Mr.. Armstrong, il was very
evident that Miss Fardy's testimony
was the most creditablc and probable.
She had the better opportunities to
know what Winner did say OH that
morning. AS to John McIvor's testi-
mony it was too knowing and mixed.
up with too many snccrs and laughs.
And this is all the evidence they have
offered TO prove that Sewer was ever
in this city or to the Identification OF
the body. Every man is supposed to
innocent until he is proven beyond a
possibility of a doubt to be guilty. The
state had defended solely upon the
theory that McNutt and Winner were
acting in conjunction. DIR. Medlin
was the first man that saw defendant
after he was found, and it was his
opinion that Winner was inscnsible at
the time,-his appearance and pulse
both warranting the assertion. What
inconsistency is there in the theory
that he was insensibic at the time the
murder was committed. If murder
was committed it must have been done
by McNutt, who bought the laudanum
and the whiskey. The state absolutely
failed to show that the defendant had
done anything or had any connection
with the murder. 1t was clearly shown
that Sewer was alive and well at To.
peka on the Gath of December, and I'M
der the law it is presumed that he is
still alive. There is no evidence that
defendant ever saw McNutt's wife
| then what motive could he have had tC
Undue his hands in blood for the sake
of getting that woman the insurance
money. There is no evidence to show
tina: there was any combination be
tween McNutt, his wife and defendant
to defraud an insurance company. Il
there was any plot the defendant never
would have went to the insuranc,
agent and told him how such thing
could be done: The fact that defendant
| inquired after McNutt that morning
and showed so much sOlicitude for Iii.
welfare was a strong circumstance il
his favor and in presumption of hi
innocence. As to the plot dwelt upon
so much by the county attorney there
was no evidence whatever to in an,
way connect defendant with it. NJ
motive had been shown which the law
says must be made plain. Mr.. Tuckel
was very earnest in his speech and oc
cupied just two hours. The day being
spent the court adjourned till mex
morning.
Judge Harris commenced his address
Friday morning by making statemen
of his own experience and knowledg,
of the case. He was interrupted by thu
court who told him that he must in hi
speech stick to the evidence. In an
swer the speaker said all he desired
was to present the facts, and to do hi
duty by the unfortunate young MAJ
for whom he appeared, and he had M
desire to step outside of the evidence
The court told him to proceed. Mr.
Harris said that the case under consi
deration was very remarkable one
and ii the young man was guilty it wa
still more remarkable when the raisin:
of the Young man was taken into con
sidcration, and the poor benefits which
were to be derived. 1t was charged
house was burned. The court tell
YOU that You must find from the testi
mony that was so before you can re
turn a verdict, As also its location ant
| its owners name: that it is necessar,
to find that the defendant did set fir,
to that building, now permit me to asl
YOU what testimony has there been of
fered or what witness has deposet
that Arthur Winner or Joseph McNut
ever set fire to that building? Not on,
witness had SO testified. Was til,
bringing of man TO this city and eyi
dence that they had burnt the build
ing? You cannot decide from you
own notions, prcjudices or rumors
Under the instruction of the court ant
under your oaths only can you brin:
| in q verdict. We come now to tn,
testimony. Somebody saw light il
! the Young mems room that night a
| the unusual hour Of ten or twelv,
o'clock. Was that a strange thing o,
! Christmas eve? 1t was shown tina
I IL -. ..>.,,.x MAJ, sr,onf THAR n,oni,,1r