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

iuOTuiuS. hucW tue scCOuO payment
on my policy was due in January
didn't go over to Kansas City and in.
form the company. because was try
ing to get away from persons in Kan.
sas City as much as from parties here
The card work I was doing was fol
myself We had about $500 worth
of material OH hand. Knew there was
dance going on in town and in this
hall that night. There was a light in
the back room when Sewer and Win.
ner came up.
McNutt was again examined as to
some minor particulars by Judge Rug.
giles. He was on the stand over day
altogether, his examination concluding
late Thursday evening.
Friday morning the court convened
at 9 o'clock, and Judge Campbell pro-
ceeded with his instructions to the
jury. after which Mr.. Sluss commenced
his opening. He said: I'VE must now
come to the less important part OF the
trial, for as you have been informed,
the evidence must be relied upon fol
YOUR conclusions. But it is hy prov
ince and boundcn duty to give you my
views, and to assist you in weighing
properly the evidence that has been
presented. When have done this
will have discharged my duty.
Did McNutt have any connection
with Winner in the committing of the
foul murder charged, and was it done
with malice aforethought, premedit-
ately and with criminal intent! AS to
the house being burned, and as to there
ever having been such man as W. w.
Sewer, are facts established beyond
any question, for the proof was most
conclusive. Besides the defendant on
the stand admitted that there was such
a man; that he was acquitted with
him, and had seen him in Wichita.
Outside of these admissions, there is
enough in the testimony to show that
w. W. Sewer did really come to Wich-
tia. We find that Winner was away
from Wichita from the 14th to the 18th
of December, and we find that he was
really at Topeka and Kansas City at
that time. The enormity and charac-
ter of the matter was such as to fix def
nitcly the dates in the minds of the
witnesses who testified as to the time
when Winner was seen at Kansas City
and Topeka. And the account Of his
actions and conversations and inquir-
les after Sewer were impressed OH the
minds of those who testified to them.
We find that on the 18th day of Decem-
Der Texas left Kansas City for Wichi-
ia. and the further fact that Winner
left on the same day, after he had been
inquiring for him-little circumstan-
ces when taken by themselves, but
clear and strong evidence when taken
in the light of subsequent facts. For
some reason, it does not appear,
Sewer stopped at Topeka until the
oath, but Winner came Oh home. On
the 22d Winner tclegraphs to Topeka
to "Tex" to come on, and telling him
that a letter was in this post office for
him. Sewer was a poor man, with
out means, and in want of money and
work. And every circumstance and
every statement of his tends to show
that he did actually start and come to
Wichita. We have not the testimony
that nc was seen to arrive at wichita,
but we find Winner at the Richey
house waiting for the train, he having
declared the day before that he was cx-
pecting a man who was friend. He
started for Wichita, he was expected
at Wichita. and there is no doubt he
did come to Wichita. The fact that
since that time he has never been seen
or heard of by his friends or others is
proof enough that he did come. And
when McNutt gets u&On the witness
stand and says himself he saw him
here, what use is there further to ar
que the proposition. Was there
body burned at that building? and if
so, whose body was it? We can't
prove his features, his complexion or
dress. but has there been any tcstimo-
nv tending to 10 show that it was any
body elsc's body! The victim was
harmless, ignorant creature,
addicted TO strong drink, and if he
was not brought here for the purpose
of burning, what was he brought here
for? 1t was not McNutt or Winner
that was burned, and they were the
only other persons traced to the house
that night. There he is alone with the
defendants at the hour of midnight, |
since which time he has never been |
heard of and what other conclusion |
han that he was burned can you ar
i've at? The counsel, under the in
'truction of the court. will attempt |
o show that the victim was really |
killed before he was burned, and if so,
he must be acquitted, as the informa-
ion charges that he was burned TO
leath.' We find the body all charred,
he head bursted open, the legs burned
If, the hands consumed, and we could
,ot see whether he had been shot or
poisoned: but the only thing that we
now, TO a certainty, is, that he was
was dead-burned up,
The natural reasonable conclusion that
on would come to is, that he was
urned to death especially so in the
allure upon the part of the doctors TO
nd that he had come to his death in
ny other way. In other kinds of kill
ng, except burning, the doctors tell
GU that the blood coaguiates in the
avities of the body, and we have
hown by positive proof that the
lood in the cavities of the body was
OF coagulated. proof by science that
he body was burned TO death Well,
body was found burned to death
ne court tells YOU the next question
, determine is, when did it! We q
,und that the body was that of Sc .
Ter. and that he was burned, The I
st we know of Winner and Sewer is 2
lat they went up stairs together.
inner Is the man that done the kill
g and burned up the building. With.
! two hours aud half after McSuit
aves here we find the fire and Win a
ar laying ut the foot of the stairs :
ounded and bleeding. pretending TO Q
; feariuliy batchered. He could not Y
: unconscioC- for, mark you he want l
10 get away from the fire. asking
be taken to his boarding house, de- I
airing that they had cut him all to o
eces. The natural supposition Il
ould be that the house had been u